There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the law as it applies to bicycle use for transportation. Many individuals on both sides of the issue appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the Texas Transportation Code states and how it affects cyclists who choose to operate in a vehicular manner.
Two statutes in particular are germane to the subject. Taking a look at each, in turn, we begin with §551.101.
Sec. 551.101. RIGHTS AND DUTIES. (a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless:
(1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty; or
(2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.
(b) A parent of a child or a guardian of a ward may not knowingly permit the child or ward to violate this subtitle.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Specific analysis will be left to future articles. Nevertheless, this Section of the Transportation Code defines a bicycle as a vehicle and conveying upon it and its operator the “same rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle.” Definitions for the subtitle in reference are contained in §541.201, which includes:
(2) “Bicycle” means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.
Don’t get too excited, however. The fact that a bicycle is listed as the second defined vehicle is a reflection of its ranking according to alphabetical order. Nevertheless, it reflects the conveyance of legitimacy to the bicycle as a design vehicle and that it and its operator are to be afforded respect as well as consideration as a lawful road user.
The next subsection to be highlighted is that which pertains to the operation of a bicycle upon the roadway.
Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
(b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of the roadway.
(c) Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.
(d) Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1085, Sec. 13, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1085, Sec. 10, 13, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
A detailed analysis of this subsection will also await a future commentary. It not enough to say at this point that §551.103 is among the most misunderstood subsection in the statute. Motorists and bicycle advocates alike tend to interpret this as suggesting cyclists must ride in the gutter or as near as possible thereto. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Use of the term practicable, as opposed to practical, conveys a wide margin of discretion to the transportation cyclist. It imparts the ability to evaluate the condition of the road, surrounding traffic and environment – among other details – and determine a safe and comfortable road alignment. Ruts in the surface material, standing water, parallel drainage grates, uneven surface are a few of many legitimate factors to be considered.
Of even greater significance is §551.103(b)(4). This passage defines an important distinction. If the lane is substandard – being defined as less than fourteen (14) feet in width – then the cyclist is free to take control of the entire lane, if they so desire and if doing so does not impede the normal flow of traffic.
It has been my experience that many people have poor depth perception. Even worse, they have an undeveloped sense of distance. Consider the fact that an average automobile is approximately six feet wide, including side mirrors. An average rule of thumb for determining whether a lane is at least fourteen feet in width would be to eyeball the ability to place two average sized cars side-by side, door-to-door in the outside travel lane. If this is not possible, then a cyclist is very much within their rights to take control of the entire lane.
Need further proof? Take a tape measure out to a few of the roads near your home or place of employment. Being careful to consider approaching vehicles, run the tape out fourteen feet and place that tick at the curb face. I wager one will be surprised at how far the tape extends into the adjacent lane.
Finally, for this discussion, consider the idea of impediment. One can only be accused of impeding the flow of traffic if their presence prevents other vehicles from reasonable progression. If there is at least one other same direction lane, no impediment exists. The motorist has the option of safely changing lanes and passing the cyclist. In the absence of an inside lane for passing, only then must the cyclist consider riding further to the right or pulling over to allow the building queue behind them to pass.
Recall this phrase from §551.101, “unless [it] cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.” The laws of physics and human physiology limit the speed at which a cyclist can operate for any length of time. Thus, if the operator of a bicycle can only manage ten to fifteen miles per hour, that individual cannot be held responsible for traveling at a slower rate of speed than the surrounding traffic, because it is physically impossible for them to go any faster.
This information is presented in order to lay the groundwork for future discussion subjects. Additional analysis and commentary will deal with the evolution of the law as it applies to bicyclists in Texas. It is beneficial to know what others have attempted to enact into law on our behalf, as well as to understand the extent to which still others were willing to limit our lawful access to the road.
“…and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane,”
I wait with eagerness to see if we read this the same way.
Though a more in-depth analysis will follow at a later date, here is a quick response.
I’ll be honest, PM, there was a time when I did not share your views on this statement. When taken alone and out of context, it seems to suggest that the criteria of the outside lane being less than fourteen feet and the presence of a designated bike lane are separate considerations. If the gaps are removed and the sentence combined as a contiguous statement, then the intent changes.
Constructed this way there can be little doubt the intent is to require use of the bike lane when the outside lane is less than fourteen feet. Given that most routes containing bike lanes are already cramped for space in order to accommodate the bike lane, this effectively mandates use of the bike lane where present. I am aware of very few instances where mandatory use of the bike lane would not exist.
Ambiguity on this point results from use of the contraction “and”. If “or” were used instead, the intent would be more definitive: if the bike lane exists, it must be used.
Hoo Wee! This is good stuff, Herman! I look forward to your expanded thoughts on this subject.
A thoughtful essay on impedance can be found here:
http://mighkwilson.com/2009/05/impeding-traffic-is/
I found the tape measure to be an eye-opening tool, and I recommend all of your readers employ it one Saturday in their own area. Stretch it out behind some parked automobiles as well. There are few wide lanes in north Texas.
I am curious what you, Herman, and P.M. Summer, think the new “Vulnerable road-user” bill will mean regarding bike lanes on multi-laned streets. I am of the opinion it may not require observance of the three foot passing distance, even if someone were inclined to enforce it.
Tailwinds!
Reed, I do not think the new bill applies to bicyclists in bike lanes, as they are in their own lane. That’s what the Magick Paint is for, but I have to admit to not having looked at it closely.
[quote]I’ll be honest, PM, there was a time when I did not share your views on this statement. When taken alone and out of context, it seems to suggest that the criteria of the outside lane being less than fourteen feet and the presence of a designated bike lane are separate considerations. If the gaps are removed and the sentence combined as a contiguous statement, then the intent changes.[/quote]
It means one of two things, because it’s not there by accident.
1) Cyclists must use bike lane if present on a substandard width roadway,
2) Cyclists may not use full lane if a bike lane is present.
PM, The question is whether vacating the cyclist’s lane is sufficient compliance under the statute or if even then three foot clearance is needed.
The “vulnerable” protected class includes construction workers. If someone was , say, trimming vegetation while standing in a bike lane, wouldn’t the six foot rule still be applicable for trucks traveling there? Or would a truck not be compelled to divert at all?
I get that a fella leaning on a shovel would get three feet as a minimum safe passing distance no matter where he is on the road. Less clear, because the statute says vacating a lane would be sufficient, is whether a bike lane is a “travel lane”.
It is most likely a moot point, because such laws are never enforced. (Zero prosecutions in Florida in two years.)
Actually, the law satisfies both of those interpretations, PM. The language, as I read it, states that a cyclist must use the bike lane if it is present and the outside travel lane is under fourteen feet in width (#1). By law, cyclists can only take control of a lane which is less than fourteen feet in width. Ergo, interpretation two cannot exist, except insofar as it mirrors interpretation one.
Conceivably, if a roadway exists which has an outside lane equal to or greater than fourteen feet, with an adjacent bike lane, a cyclist could ride in the regular traffic lane; provided they stay as far right as possible (again, nullifying interpretation two). Of course, such a cyclist would be susceptible to all sorts of harassment from motorists demanding they use the adjacent bike lane.
I think you pretty much answered your own question in a subsequent reply, Reed.
PM is correct. The “Safe Passing” statute will, if signed into law, not affect cyclists in bike lanes. Because they are in their own delineated space, I would suspect the Magick Paint will be interpreted as already affording them protection according to the law. Extending that idea, there is unlikely to be any enforcement when a tractor/trailer, traveling in an outside lane, passes an urban pedestrian on a sidewalk. There will likely be fewer than six feet separating the two, but, since the pedestrian is on their own, protected facility, this prospective statute will not apply.
An exemplary application would be those instances where a sidewalk does not exist and the pedestrian is walking in the street. Motorists will not be able to buzz them as they pass; they will have to move away and afford at least three feet of space as a buffer.
For our purposes, this law will only apply to situations where the cyclist is operating on a road fourteen feet and wider or instances where timid or inexperienced cyclists are riding too far to the right on lanes narrower than fourteen feet. A competent and experienced vehicular cyclist will be far enough out in the lane already and overtaking motorists will have fully changed lanes and provided them with space equal to or greater than three feet, already.
So, yes, the discussion is largely moot for a variety of reasons.