livedarklions

New laws in MA:
https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...es-hold/?amp=1

Article doesn't mention that MA doesn't have a FRAP requirement. At the end of the article, mentions that there's a new requirement that cyclists riding at night must have rear red light AND reflector, but that the same law makes that completely unenforceable.

Comments ,mr_bill ?

rumrunn6

unfortunately, I think only we know about it. we'll still get buzzed by the typical ~20yr old male drivers, USPS flat beds carrying two little mail trucks, contractors who don't like waiting behind us on blind corners & self righteous Prius drivers who are jealous that we use less gas than them

delbiker1 

I think 2 years ago, Delaware enacted a 3 foot clearance for motor vehicles when passing a bicycle. I have noticed more drivers giving cyclists more room, but it is still ignored by at least as many other drivers. It is quite likely that many vehicle operators do not know of the law, especially visitors from out of state. I live in a beach resort area, ergo, we get a huge number of tourist/vacationers. One thing that really angers me, when we have traffic jams on the 2 lane, beach bound, main highway, many drivers will steer their vehicle into the bike lane, which is pretty narrow, trying to see the cause or the length of the back up, or to see if there is room to pass on the right because they are making a right turn a bit down the road. Most of the drivers that do this do not look to the side, or behind them, before making that move. Many of them will stay right there, blocking the bike lane. Once we get into April, there is a large influx of bicyclists on the roads.

FBinNY 

Pardon my ignorance and contrariness on the subject, but I can't fathom how a 4' rule known only to cyclists does us any good. State can pass these rules, or even expand them to 6' rules but they cannot keep us safe on the road until/unless drivers obey them, and that's not likely to change until they're at least informed of the changes.

So, it's nice that my heirs and assigns might have more ammunition, but I would greatly not have it come to that. Please let me know if and when it at least is included as a question on the written test. Until then I'll consider that nothing has changed.

livedarklions

I'll be interested to see if there will actually be the signage that the article mentions.

livedarklions

It appears that it is to be coupled with a signage program and I would assume the rule will be part of drivers ed going forward, but I don't think anyone expects that such laws result in instant dramatic improvements. I think you're arguing against a straw man.

The most interesting thing to me is that there was little or no effective opposition to this bill. That might actually reflect some important shift in pubic attitude towards cycling.

I do a fair amount of my riding in MA, I don't expect I'll find any noticeable change in drivers' behavior right away, but I would not be surprised if it does make a statistical difference over time. That will, of course, be extremely hard to prove.

FBinNY 

No strawman here. Just my well honed skepticism about the effectiveness of these laws.

OTOH, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

Leisesturm

I'm just putting it out there that a 4' pass/no pass zone for bicycles essentially means motor traffic is held to the speed of an average cyclist for blocks at a time. Good luck with expecting motorists to toodle behind 12mph cyclists for indefinite periods of time. Will really make a cyclist sighting a happy occasion. FWIW even on sharrows (no motorist passing) I encourage cars to pass and the vast majority appreciate the consideration. They may think they prevailed in some kind of unspoken _______ match but I would rather they are able to pass (if possible) and go on their way than fume and fluster behind me until I release them from bondage. YMMV.

livedarklions

I won't argue with that because you included the YMMV, and I do think one's effective strategy is extremely dependent on how fast you ride and what kind of roads you're riding on. One of the things the new MA law does is to clarify that drivers can cross yellow lines to pass cyclists which was obviously aimed at preventing the log ups you're describing. MA law was unclear on the passing rule up to now.

Honestly, I don't expect that I will suddenly see drivers keeping a 4 foot distance when I ride in MA, but I do think it might be slightly more likely that there will be fewer passing within 3 feet.

​​​​​The lack of a FRAP rule in MA does make this an Interesting state for this 4 foot rule. I look forward to fellow MA riders' observations of whether they notice any difference over time.

indyfabz

I live in PA, which enacted the first 4’ law . Vehicles are not required to always wait behind a cyclist. A vehicle may legally cross even a double yellow line to pass if it is safe to do so.

The law took effect 11 years ago this July. There is some signage, and at least one county (the wealthiest in the state that is home to a huge club) had an education campaign after the sheriff admitted that he didn’t know the law existed.

Having toured across the state several times, I think the law has made a difference, especially in Pennsyltucky. Try riding somewhere like Montana, where, on some state and highways, you can get passed with little room by vehicles doing 70 mph+. It will make riding on Interstate Highways feel safe, which it often is.

Troul 

before that got pushed thru, I wonder how many active bicycle riders were well aware of the proposal in the beginning stages (drafts) ?

Seems as if we only know of these new "regs" after the ship has sailed. Good luck trying to reverse it now. The whole "both lights & reflectors" is asking for too much from the general public. Some might ride at night to go to night class, work late shift, grabbing food for the house & lack a car... Reflectors &/or lights would be more acceptable.

livedarklions

But, you can't be stopped for it and it doesn't really count for much in civil suits. I think this was just a sop to the drivers.

Troul 

though you cannot be stopped, it doesnt decrease harassment potential... doesnt MA have "stop and identify" ?

mr_bill

Sigh.

We were all well aware for the FOUR YEARS it took to pass this law.

The four foot law has already been well publicized in local media. That won’t reach anyone who gets all their “news” from one “news” station owned by an Australian-American of course.

The rear light requirement comes from a legislator who is pro bicyclist. He argued (correctly, imo) that reflectors are not adequate alone. Those of us who argued that this might be a pretext to stop some people on bikes were heard, and the changes make sure that it cannot be used as a pretext.

Every fall we have “lights brigades” getting front AND rear lights in the hands of people on bikes.

For those who expect an immediate change in behavior, you will be disappointed.


I won’t be able to personally report on the effectiveness of the light laws (side effects of cancer drugs have punted me off the roads at night, both as a driver and a rider), and the expansion of infrastructure (and caution from side effects) keep me off almost all roads while riding.

Formerly strong and fearless (never liked that classification anyway)….

-mr. bill

merlinextraligh

I agree. I think the next step is to require drivers to take a test to renew their licenses. It can be open book, online, but requires drivers to acknowledge changes in the traffic code, such as the 3 foot rule.

merlinextraligh

It absolutely counts in civil suits. In virtually every jurisdiction, violation of a statute is negligence per se. So the person violating the statue is presumed to be negligent, and has to rebut that presumption. It flips the burden of proof.

mr_bill

It absolutely doesn’t. The light language is nearly identical to the youth helmet law, well tested and settled.

You go into court claiming negligence you will fail.

(While I’m not a lawyer, your free legal advice is worth every penny.)

-mr. bill

livedarklions

Maybe actually read the article before you comment like this. The statute contradicts both of these explicitly.

livedarklions

Thanks! I would love to know more about the ins and outs of this passage and the 4 year path. MA politics are pretty inscrutable to outsiders. Charlie Baker's contribution is pretty funny. What surprises me about the night requirement isn't the rear light, it's keeping the reflector requirement as well.

Missing your posts around here, and I have good thoughts about you whenever I ride on the Minuteman and see Uncle Sam. May your powers of night vision return soon.

merlinextraligh

So plaintiffs lawyers have gotten carve outs in youth helmet laws, and seat belt laws, where failure to use them cannot be used to support a claim of contributory negligence.

the Mass statute does provide that failure to wear a helmet isn’t contributory negligence. show me where it says violation of the 4 foot rule isn’t negligence, which is the context of the post to which I was responding.
That in no way contradicts my point that violation of a statute, absent such a carve out, is negligence per se. So show me the carve out in the Massachusetts statue. I haven’t seen it, and honestly not,worth my effort to research it.

and fwiw, I am an attorney, have tried such cases, been a partner in major law firms, and been an officer for Fortune 500 companies responsible for managing such litigation, so what the hell do I know.

and my point relates to the negligence of the driver violating the 4 foot rule, not , the light requirement.

FBinNY 

While I've never seen these laws as s magic bullet, I think it's equally mistaken to see this as law as somehow anti cyclist.

The argument against the light requirement is misplaced. Reflectors have always been required, but the lights OR reflectors creates a false and dangerous equivalence. We now live in an era of light and cheap LED lights and rechargeable batteries, so there's no longer a rational argument against a light requirement. If there's any issue here it's the need for both. I would have simply mandated a light.

As for potential civil liability, that's unchanged. Lights at night are common sense, and we can rest assured that the issue would be raised, law or not. In any case, we can't argue about driver responsibility, then moan about any rational obligations on cyclists.

All in all, there's nothing wrong with this law, per se. In fact, clarification of the legality of crossing a double yellow to safely pass a cyclist is a real positive (if the law is clear on this point).

So, while I don't get excited about these laws, it's not the law. It's that I don't think they'll change things much.

livedarklions

Fellow attorney here--if you think you were clear about which provision of the law you were discussing, you weren't. Given the context of the part of the thread you were in, it sure appeared that you were discussing the light provision. Where did anyone assert the civil carve out of the 4 foot rule? Driver liability for that s a feature, not a bug. It appears that the intent is to use that as the primary enforcement mechanism.

livedarklions

It's a long game strategy. No one expects sudden dramatic effects.

Leisesturm

Reflectors vs Lights. While shopping for lights I have noticed a few marketed as being legal as both. Cateye makes at least one, and Planet Bike does as well. Portland Design Works is closely allied with Planet Bike and probably does as well. Lights can be, and are generally, on the small side. With fresh batteries they are incredibly bright, especially the 'daylight' ones. When the batteries are run down, or dead, not so much. There isn't much surface area to serve any useful reflective protection. Reflectors otoh are usually much larger than lights, but, of course, rely on the observer having lights to activate them. The legal reflector/lights are physically as big as reflectors need to be, along with the active LED elements.

I get that legal provisions meant to cover a wide swath of riders and riding situations would mandate both active and passive illumination strategies to be present on a road legal bicycle. I am certain that the legal light/reflectors observe a reasonable interpretation of the law. It doesn't need to be codified for automotive equipment because, by design, an automotive rear taillight pair (triad) has enough reflective area to serve as passive lighting in the event of a bulb failure. There is also the fact that in most jurisdictions a non-functioning taillight is illegal, even if large enough to serve as passive illumination. The bar is much higher for motor vehicle compliance. It probably shouldn't be that way, but I'll take the GOJFC. I get caught out with dead or dying batteries all the time. Still, it is amazing what an alert driver can see at night! I've been a pedestrian in Ninja clothing on the sidewalk, and fully aware of my camouflage situation, prepared to yield to turning cars at intersections. One night doing just that, a car just sat there and wouldn't turn. It took me a second to realize the driver knew I was there! I'm off to the side of them, their headlight beams couldn't possibly pick me up. Streetlighting is for caca around here. Makes me suspect that a lot of the "I didn't see him/her" defenses are pure _________.

Many drivers expect pedestrians to scamper, or otherwise see to their own safety, when confronted. If the ped doesn't, or cannot, get out of the way in time, the driver is not prepared. Most cyclists are hit by a driver that barrels around a turn only to realize the intersection is occupied and it is then too late to stop. Side lighting should be prioritized more than it is. But cyclists also need to learn not to enter an intersection when there is a car alongside! It may turn. I always make sure the car gets to the corner before I do. I also, depending on the setup, stop a 1/2 car length short of the actual turn point to make it clear that I am not turning, but if you are, then please, go right ahead (swidt?).

rumrunn6

fwiw

recently saw a portable electric road sign on route 62 in Concord, heading from Billerica which reads

"give 4 feet to bikes & pedestrians"

it's the only notice I've seen anywhere

at Frank Scimone's Farm stand
505 Old Bedford Rd, Concord, MA 01742