Question about law concerning two cyclists riding abreast

[Mark]

Let me preface this comment by noting that I generally do my best to let cars pass me – both because I try to be considerate when I’m on my bike and because I would prefer having aggressive drivers in front of me rather than behind me. Let me also note that the encounter with the Park Police officer I describe was friendly and I am by no means angry.

This afternoon, I was riding side by side with a friend on Sligo Parkway in Maryland. He was in the shoulder and I was next to him. Several cars ended up behind us, one of which was Park Police, who told us that we were not allowed to ride side by side.

We had thought two cyclists could ride side by side and queried the officer upon catching up to him at the light. He looked up the rule on his laptop and read it to us: Cyclists cannot ride side by side if they are impeding traffic.

Question 1: This law was a surprise to us. Upon coming home, I looked up the rules in DC, and apparently the same rule applies. Is this a rule in most states?

Question 2: The officer told us that we were impeding traffic because the cars behind us had to go across the double yellow line to pass us. I responded that even if we were riding single file, cars would need to go across the double yellow line to safely pass, especially if they were to give us the required three feet. However, he did not agree. I am perplexed by the rule. As a cyclist, I have a right to ride in the lane. To pass me safely, cars will always need to cross the double line. Whether I am riding single or double file is irrelevant. In fact, I might add that riding double file can be safer because it prevents cars from trying to squeeze by in the same lane. The rule just seems to be wrong headed. Has it ever been challenged?

Topic

[ImaCynic]

@Steve O 210628 wrote:

If the lane is not wide enough to allow me to ride on the right–and allow room for the driver to pass me with three feet of clearance without partially crossing into the oncoming lane–then I will ride in the center anytime there is oncoming traffic (if the road is clear ahead, then I’ll ride on the right-ish side). I do not want to give a driver room to make her believe she can squeeze by. This is, IMO, common sense and makes me safer, regardless of what the law says. In some places laws are starting to acknowledge this, such as the two-abreast law in Virginia.

^^^ This is spot on. I do the same, particularly around blind curves.

@Steve O 210628 wrote:

I disagree with this. If cars are never allowed to cross the double yellow and are also required to allow three feet to pass, then they could end up being stuck behind a cyclist for many miles, much of that unnecessarily. The law states that they may cross the line and pass, but only when safe to do so. I personally have experienced hundreds of cases of cars moving over to the oncoming lane and passing me with lots of clearance in a completely safe manner. In the absence of a law like this, I believe we cyclists would be more endangered, not less.

The rub here is “but only when safe to do so”, and I have no confidence on drivers’ ability to make that judgement. Besides, if this “allowed to cross double yellow” is a new law and won’t take effect until July, why have drivers been do so already? Again, laws only seem to matter after the fact, and when there is no enforcement, it is largely ignored. Recall the four-way stop intersection video that you posted?

Keen situational awareness and assertive riding are the best bet to stay alive out there. Laws can only be used to punish those that run you over, if they ever get caught.

[lordofthemark]

1. IIUC VBF is currently discussing exactly what is a substandard width lane, and how to get standards accepted by LE across the Commonwealth. IF you have an issue with the details of a particular law, the best thing is to get involved with advocacy orgs like VBF. This is a fine forum for general musing and free ranging discussion, but the rubber hits the road on making things better by “doing the work” of advocacy. There is ALWAYS a shortage of volunteers, and seldom a shortage of people kvetching in the background

2. It’s always wise to be situationally aware on roads.

[baiskeli]

@Judd 210632 wrote:

This is in Virginia Code 46.2-905

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-905/

§ 46.2-905. Riding bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, motorized skateboards or scooters, and mopeds on roadways and bicycle paths.
Any person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, motorized skateboard or scooter, or moped on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under conditions then existing shall ride as close as safely practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following circumstances:

1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right curb or edge;

4. When avoiding riding in a lane that must turn or diverge to the right; and

5. When riding upon a one-way road or highway, a person may also ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as safely practicable.

For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane too narrow for a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, motorized skateboard or scooter, or moped and another vehicle to pass safely side by side within the lane.

Persons riding bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, electric power-assisted bicycles, or motorized skateboards or scooters on a highway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, shall move into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle, and, on a laned roadway, shall ride in a single lane.

That’s actually the law that was amended. The last sentence, “Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, shall move into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle, and, on a laned roadway, shall ride in a single lane,” was removed.

So it seems that one may ride two abreast and not have to “not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic” but must still ” ride as close as safely practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway” as required in the first paragraph. Seems contradictory, or maybe it simply means you have to try to do both at the same time.

[mstone]

@ImaCynic 210611 wrote:

Double yellow means no passing when I last checked the traffic laws, so the notion that a car has to completely cross the double yellow to overtake a cyclist makes no sense. When put in this situation, a driver has two choices; 1) wait, or 2) squeeze around the cyclist without infringing on traffic violation, and I suspect the driver will most likely choose the latter as I would do the same.

And this, kids, is why you make sure you’re far enough over to the left to keep idiots in cars from trying to squeeze past you.

As an aside: have you ever noticed how if a car breaks down or a lane is otherwise blocked on a road with a double yellow line that drivers just put their cars into park behind the obstacle and wait patiently for it to be removed? Oh, yeah, right–the inviolability of the double yellow line is something that only exists when the issue is cyclists making it “impossible” to pass, in all other cases people use their common sense and cross the stupid line when necessary.

[Mark]

I just used a tape measure to measure off 14 feet. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a lane that wide.

I then did a google search on lane width and found the following in Wikipedia: “In the United States, the Interstate Highway standards for the Interstate Highway System use a 12 ft (3.7 m) standard lane width, while narrower lanes are used on lower classification roads.” So if lanes less that 14 feet are considered to be substandard width, one can always take the lane.

[lordofthemark]

@Mark 210656 wrote:

I just used a tape measure to measure off 14 feet. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a lane that wide.

I then did a google search on lane width and found the following in Wikipedia: “In the United States, the Interstate Highway standards for the Interstate Highway System use a 12 ft (3.7 m) standard lane width, while narrower lanes are used on lower classification roads.” So if lanes less that 14 feet are considered to be substandard width, one can always take the lane.

One reason you rarely see 14 feet lanes anymore is that lanes that wide encourage speeding. Local govts like to put in ” low hanging fruit” painted bike lanes instead. Doesnt remove a travel lane, doesn’t remove parking, makes the neighbors happy, and they can say “bike network ” though you’re riding in the same place you’d be required to be anyway.

Nonetheless you can still occasionally find a really wide lane. A short section of Ford going south from North Hampton is that wide, and I dutifully ride to the right on it, as much as the potholes allow.

[baiskeli]

@Judd 210633 wrote:

Basically you can take a lane when it less than 14 feet.

Wait, slow down – where does 14 feet come from?

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 210657 wrote:

One reason you rarely see 14 feet lanes anymore is that lanes that wide encourage speeding.

Yes; 15 or 20 years ago it was DOT trendy to put in these superwide lanes as a “bike-friendly facility”. Then experience showed that people sped even more than normal in them and cyclists generally hated them. It took a while, but I think they’re no longer trendy anywhere in the region. But I can certainly think of examples of roads built with a super-size right lane “for bikes”.

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 210659 wrote:

Wait, slow down – where does 14 feet come from?

Maximum width of a non oversized vehicle is 8.5 feet, including mirrors. https://vacode.org/46.2-1105/

IIUC that is also the standard width of a parking lane.

3 feet to pass safely. about 2 to 3 feet width for a bike and rider?

I guess?

[dbehrend]

Coincidentally, Cyliq cameras sent a promotional email this weekend that linked to a Bike Law blog post about the successful prosecution of a driver in Maryland that failed to give folks 3 feet when passing (from the video it’s pretty clearly a punish pass, and the summary says the sideview mirror clipped one of the riders):

https://www.bikelaw.com/2021/04/cycliq-video/

https://upride.cc/incident/aggressive-driver-hit-and-run/

Related to the current thread, the incident occurred on October 3, 2020, two days after an amendment to Maryland law went into effect permitting drivers to cross the double yellow to safely pass a bicyclist with all the usual caveats of safe passing – clear sight line, no oncoming traffic, adequate time, etc.

[lordofthemark]

So in the last couple of days I have made more of a point of noticing double yellow lines. Plenty of them on streets in Arlington and Alexandria that are straight with fairly gentle grades, and generally good visibility. Localities just paint them where they expect significant volumes I guess. I was passed by cars going across the yellow several times on Army Navy Driver, for example. I believe I was right to take the lane, and it all happened without incident.

[Mark]

I’ve also been looking for double yellow lines. My most common ride takes up Kemp Mill from Randolph then over to Sligo and University and then all the way down Sligo to New Hampshire. (this used to be part of my commuting route, and is now my route for a quick ride for exercise). There is a double line the entire stretch of Kemp Mill and through the entire stretch of Sligo. On some parts, visibility is quite good and cars can safely pass. On other sections, visibility is poor and cars cannot safely pass. The double yellow line is essentially meaningless and is ignored by motorists.

[ImaCynic]

@Mark 210707 wrote:

The double yellow line is essentially meaningless and is ignored by motorists.

I can assure you that this is not the only law being ignored by motorists.

More bicycle laws are NOT going to make things safer; they simply add to confusion and ignorance.

[Mark]

@ImaCynic 210710 wrote:

I can assure you that this is not the only law being ignored by motorists.

More bicycle laws are NOT going to make things safer; they simply add to confusion and ignorance.

In the case I’m referring to, the double yellow line should be ignored because it unfortunately provides no useful information. Motorists and cyclists simply need to use good judgment. I wonder what is the point of putting down meaningless road markers.

I agree with your point that laws are not going to make things safer. When I’m on the road, my decisions are based on what I believe is safe, not on what the law requires. But it still wouldn’t hurt if laws were written to be as clear and sensible as possible. Unclear laws citing cyclists as impediments strike me as simply bad laws. The three foot passing law is a good one: it is clear and to the point. Motorists do not know exactly what three feet is, but the law does convey the idea that they cannot pass to close to a cyclist. (Of course, most motorists don’t even know this rule. The good drivers simply understand that they should have a safety margin when passing.)

[lordofthemark]

@ImaCynic 210710 wrote:

I can assure you that this is not the only law being ignored by motorists.

More bicycle laws are NOT going to make things safer; they simply add to confusion and ignorance.

If you can back this statement up with data, you should publish it. You’d create quite a stir at TRB (Transportation Research Board)

But simple assertions on this forum are worth the paper they are printed on.

Traffic laws are regularly violated, but, IMO, do matter. Many people do NOT want to get a ticket. They also don’t want to be the party at fault in a civil suit. And, yes, being able to recover in a civil suit matters. And showing a pattern of violations by motorists helps us as we argue for better infrastructure I think (for example the notion of unmarked crosswalks, helps to disarm the “well the pedestrian was outside of a crosswalk, ergo jaywalking meme)

[Author]

Replies