these special interest groups kill me...

[J N Winkler]

I am wary of intervening in this thread, but as an experienced cycle commuter, I have to point out that NE2 is correct to distinguish between the actual law (as given in the Illinois statutes) and a simplified re-statement of it that is published by the Illinois Secretary of State for educational purposes.  I also have a copy of Cycle-friendly Infrastructure, which is the cycle design book English Si references and is a joint publication of the Department of Transport (as it then was) and the Institute of Highways and Transportation, and his summary of its assumptions about how cyclists use the road and its design advice is essentially correct.  This manual is especially good in explaining how its design criteria relate to the typical cyclist's dynamic envelope.

Addressing a few of Myosh_tino's comments:

The way I read this [CVC 21202(a)] is cyclists need to keep as far right as can safely be done.  It doesn't give them carte blanche to ride in the middle of the right lane although subsection (3) is very, very vague (perhaps too vague) and it seems to be an easy out for cyclists... "but officer, there are a couple of pebbles on the right shoulder and it's too dangerous".

"Pebbles on the right shoulder" is clearly meant to be reductio ad absurdum, but it really isn't.  Areas of the paved surface that are not regularly swept by motor vehicles tend to accumulate trash, much of it too small to be seen from cyclist's eye height when the cyclist is stationary, let alone when the cyclist is rolling at a sustained road speed of about 15 to 20 MPH.  The trash can include things like screws and thumbtacks which can cause bicycle tires to deflate abruptly.  In my experience (which, admittedly, does not include built-up urban roads with speed limits higher than 30 MPH), one usually has to go up to high-speed rural highways before the benefits of sticking to the shoulder outweigh the risks.

Also, as I will elaborate below, an expectation that cyclists will stick firmly to the right actually makes them less visible not just to cars approaching them from behind, but also to cars maneuvering out of side streets and driveways perpendicular to the roadway.

I find subsection (b) [of CVC 21208] the most interesting because if a cyclist needs to move out of the bike lane into a travel lane, he/she needs to do so WHEN IT'S SAFE, not whenever the cyclist feels like it.  Bicycles have brakes too so if they see someone pulling out of a driveway up ahead, use your brakes and slow down instead of swerving right in front of a car and expecting the driver to slam on his/her brakes.

This analysis focuses solely on what happens when the car pulls out of the driveway unexpectedly, presumably without the driver first checking--as I am sure he is legally obliged to do--to ensure that he can make the maneuver without interfering with the speed and direction of traffic already in the road.  (This is the legal standard for maneuvers out of side streets and driveways in the UK--I am sure English Si can supply chapter and verse from the Highway Code.  I haven't checked to see if this is also the case in California, but I am pretty sure there is an analogous provision in the CVC.)  Remember that it is not just cars already in the road whose speed and direction must not be interfered with; cyclists are also covered.

Let's move further up the chain of events and ask what happens when the driver backing out of the driveway checks, as he is legally obliged to do, that he can complete the maneuver without interfering with other traffic.  If the cyclist is riding close to the middle of the lane, instead of hugging the curb, then he is more visible to following car traffic which would otherwise have to brake abruptly if the cyclist were hugging the curb and had to move left abruptly to avoid an ill-timed (and illegal) backing-up maneuver.  In the middle of the lane the viewing angle he presents to the driver backing up (and checking to see that the way is clear, as he is legally obliged to do) is very slightly worse, but this is more than counterbalanced by the fact that he is less likely to be obscured by cars parked at the curb, or by trees and other plantings in the area between the curb and the sidewalk.

Of interest is Section 21656 which states that on a two-lane highway, a slow moving vehicle must pull off into a designated turnout *OR* wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists to allow vehicles to pass.  This part of the CVC also applies to cyclists.  I find it highly annoying when I and other motorists get stuck behind a slow-moving cyclist on a two-lane highway with no way to pass and the cyclist doesn't pull off the road per section 21656 of the CVC.

It is necessary to pay careful attention to what exactly it is that this section of CVC requires cyclists to do.  It requires them to turn out when it is safe to do so, e.g. when a shoulder is provided.  (In fact, in a rural context, the vast majority of cyclists would already be on the shoulder.)  It does not require them to turn out when no turnouts are provided and a ditch slope begins immediately at the edge of the traveled way.  It also does not require them to exit the paved surface at high speed onto gravel or other unconsolidated material.  In California a turnout is a paved area of roadway one lane width wide that is separated from the through lane by a solid white stripe:  it is not a short-lived lateral bulge in the structural pavement section.

[hobsini2]

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.

So now you are an expert when it comes to Illinois law. Ok then give me the specific statute in the Illinois code that gives cyclists the right to obstruct vehicle traffic by riding down the middle of the street.  That is what you are advocating and saying it is legal for them to do so with no limit in the amount of distance that they can proceed that way.

This on top of you saying that a ticket issued by the Secretary of State Police is to be disregarded.

Have some common sense please.

[hobsini2]

I don't care what other traffic does as long as they are obeying the signs and signals and the rules of the road when sharing the road. How many times do I have to say that before you guys figure it out?

I know you say that, it is irrelevant for the discussion we're having.

I'm saying that both the treatment that cyclists get from both the government and other road users encourage them to break the rules, especially the rules that create a safe/legal dichotomy, and that needs to be changed - in part by changing the bad rules, in part by changing the culture on the road - both of cyclists and of motorists.

If a cyclist wants to ride in the road, by all means do so as long as that cyclist obeys the rules. It is the disregard of such signals and signs I do object to.

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

How long do I have to keep saying it, some laws are dangerous for cyclists to follow, in which case why should a cyclist follow such a law? Certainly if I got ticketed for that in IL, I'd counter-sue the state for reckless endangerment, because that's what having to obey that law would be doing - endangering my life.

It seems to me that either you feel that projecting an image of being a gestapo-loving legalist, who is no doubt an unlikeable jobsworth, is better than someone who cares about the lives of cyclists, or your hogging the lane comment when talking about taking primary position is a showing of your true colours - a Mr Toad who doesn't like people getting in the way of his driving fun. Poop! Poop!

I think you would have a tough time proving reckless endangerment by the state.   In any case, if the law is a bad law, don't you think that prior to the bill becoming law there would have been some input from the cycling community? It is very rare that a law is made that affect a certain group without having that group have some input.

Secondly, that kid cyclist that I had mentioned before was not trying to get around parked vehicles, broken glass, a sewer grate, etc.  There was no trees or other obstructions in my view of him.  He was riding in the middle of the lane and weaving in the lane because he felt like doing so.  And you think that he was being safe and responsible?

[NE2]

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.

So now you are an expert when it comes to Illinois law. Ok then give me the specific statute in the Illinois code that gives cyclists the right to obstruct vehicle traffic by riding down the middle of the street.  That is what you are advocating and saying it is legal for them to do so with no limit in the amount of distance that they can proceed that way.

This on top of you saying that a ticket issued by the Secretary of State Police is to be disregarded.

Have some common sense please.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[hobsini2]

Even if it's dangerous to follow the law, like the law we're talking about?

The point I'm making and hobsini is ignoring is that the law allows riding in the middle of the lane. The brochure he linked incorrectly summarizes the laws, calling riding all the way to the right a "bicycle safety tip". If you read that and don't realize it's full of shit, and then get into a crash, you might have a case against the state.

So now you are an expert when it comes to Illinois law. Ok then give me the specific statute in the Illinois code that gives cyclists the right to obstruct vehicle traffic by riding down the middle of the street.  That is what you are advocating and saying it is legal for them to do so with no limit in the amount of distance that they can proceed that way.

This on top of you saying that a ticket issued by the Secretary of State Police is to be disregarded.

Have some common sense please.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You said you know the Illinois code better than what the Secretary of State issues out so I say to you prove it. Give me the statute code number that makes it legal for a cyclists to go down the highway in the middle of the lane without any restrictions of distance in that travel lane. That is what you are saying. If you can't prove it, then you really should not try and comment on Illinois law.

[NE2]

625 ILCS 5/11-1505 (a) 3. Read it and weep.

[hobsini2]

Oh wait I found what the Illinois code says from http://www.activetrans.org/bicyclists-and-law/illinois-statutes and I quote:

Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways–Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.

So there is the law. Now you may question if it is a good or bad law. That's your right. But until that law is changed, that is the law in Illinois.

[hobsini2]

Using #3 as you point out, operative words are REASONABLY NECESSARY to AVOID conditions.

If the condition is not there, they do not have the right to the entire lane.

[agentsteel53]

this is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever seen.   

btw, to introduce an alternate perspective: Sec. 11-1505. BOOYA MOTHERFUCKER! TEN BOOYAS IN A PLASTIC SACK!  AND A FREE GOAT!

[hobsini2]

And BTW, the Secretary of State's pamphlet, the one I have sourced before, does agree with the actual code.
Post Merge: August 13, 2012, 11:29:02 PM

this is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever seen.   

btw, to introduce an alternate perspective: Sec. 11-1505. BOOYA MOTHERFUCKER! TEN BOOYAS IN A PLASTIC SACK!  AND A FREE GOAT!

11-1505 backs up my argument.  It does not entitle a cyclist to remain in a lane of traffic when there is no condition impeding them stay as close to the right. 3 feet from the white line is the amount of room that a cyclist has unless there is something the impedes their movement that would require them to move farther into the lane.

[agentsteel53]

has anyone considered quoting 11-1505?  I don't believe this has happened yet.

[hobsini2]

And btw if you don't accept that, then answer me this. Why when a road has a bike lane on the road marked, is it 1) next to the white line along the right shoulder and 2) it is 3 feet wide when it is marked off?

[hobsini2]

As requested.

Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways–Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
Post Merge: August 13, 2012, 11:29:25 PM
BTW agent, I did post the code in post 179 earlier.

[agentsteel53]

the point I am trying to make is that you're both referring to the exact same law to argue opposite sides.

what is this, Leviticus??

[NE2]

or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Yeah. Dubmass.

[kphoger]

11-1505 backs up my argument.  It does not entitle a cyclist to remain in a lane of traffic when there is no condition impeding them stay as close to the right. 3 feet from the white line is the amount of room that a cyclist has unless there is something the impedes their movement that would require them to move farther into the lane.

3 feet from the white line is within the lane of traffic, by the way.  Just saying...

[Special K]

if you obstruct my legally defined right of way, and I cannot evade you in time, I'm just gonna kill you.  tough break, bubbakins.

Sounds like you're just waiting for an opportunity.

[J N Winkler]

the point I am trying to make is that you're both referring to the exact same law to argue opposite sides.

Yup.  The disagreement is about what the phrase "reasonably necessary" means.  The next step is to look up a court decision (if one exists) which lays down an interpretation of "reasonably necessary" in this context that has value as precedent.

My suspicion is that such a ruling, if it exists, is unlikely to favor Hobsini's position.  A judge will almost certainly proceed from the premise that a reasonable person on a cycle will choose the approach to lane positioning that minimizes his overall risk of injury.  Studies which show that the lane positioning NE2 favors is safer will therefore be given considerable deference.

[kphoger]

3 feet from the white line is the amount of room that a cyclist has unless there is something the impedes their movement that would require them to move farther into the lane.

Where are you getting the 3 foot rule?  I'm reading and re-reading the laws, and all I can find is that cars are required to pass cyclists at a distance of no less than 3 feet.  I'm not finding anything in the law that says as close as practicable = three feet.  Honestly, on many roads, three feet is not enough to avoid potholes.  Moreover, let's say I ride three feet from the edge line.  Let's assume that my bike and I are 2½ feet wide.  Any motorist must give me at least three feet clearance to pass me.  That's a total of at least 8½ feet, at which point any reasonable driver would simply change lanes and allow the cyclist the full lane.

[agentsteel53]

Sounds like you're just waiting for an opportunity.

of course.  firearms are too difficult to acquire in this country, so that is how I must satisfy my urges.

[agentsteel53]

Studies which show that the lane positioning NE2 favors is safer will therefore be given considerable deference.

it's probably not a coincidence, then, that this exact thing has been written into law in other states.

[Scott5114]

All I know is that I will probably never ride a bicycle in a public street again. Riding down the middle of a lane is beyond my risk tolerance level.

[Alps]

FWIW, I have never ridden down the middle of a lane, even in 10-foot wide lanes with no shoulders. I keep to the right, leaving a foot or two of escape room, and monitor traffic coming behind me. If a car looks unsure to slow down and avoid me, I prepare to evade if necessary. So far, never had a problem.

[Takumi]

All I know is that I will probably never ride a bicycle in a public street again. Riding down the middle of a lane is beyond my risk tolerance level.

I pretty much stay on residential side streets as much as possible on my normal riding route for the same reason. I'm fine riding in the middle of the street when it gets 50 vehicles per day.

[kphoger]

Thought:
Riding as close as possible to the edge line, then moving up to three feet from the edge at every obstacle (such as parked vehicles, debris, storm drains, potholes)–––sounds like weaving to me.  I try to avoid weaving.   

So yesterday, I posted on this forum, then had to run a couple of errands.  One block from my house, I encountered kids playing basketball in the street.  Instead of shouting at them or calling the police, I slowed down and drove cautiously.  And, you know what?  It worked!  Coming back home, the same thing happened.  It was sooooo cool!