| | Re: Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City
bhugh@mwsc.edu wrote:
> > I'd like to see some citations of the code sections which
> > might be applicable in this case.
>
> Well, you asked for it . . .
>
> For bicycle-related provisions in Missouri law:
>
> http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html
>
> But, more specifically--Missouri Law applicable to this situation:
>
> "304.012. 1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and
> highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and
prudent
> manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of
> another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the
> highest degree of care."
>
> (The fact that the bicyclists were guilty of an infraction--riding
> abreast when they shouldn't--be no means excuses the driver from
> driving in a "careful and prudent manner" nor from "exercising the
> highest degree of care".)
>
> -----------
>
> "304.016. 1. (1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle
> proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a
> safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the
> roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."
>
> (Note that a bicycle is considered as a vehicle as far as 304.016 is
> concerned. So motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance and
> wait until safely clear before moving back over. This motorist
clearly
> did neither of these--and didn't even have the wits to maintain that
> the bicyclists "swerved", which is his only conceivable defense
against
> a charge of unsafe passing. Although the bicyclists and the driver
> disagree on details, it is clear even from the driver's version of
the
> story alone that he violated both 304.012 and 304.016.)
>
> -----------
>
> "304.016 4. No vehicle shall at any time be driven to the left side
of
> the roadway under the following conditions:
>
> (1) When approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve of the
> highway where the driver's view is obstructed within such distance as
> to create a hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from
the
> opposite direction;"
>
> (It is quite clear that the motorist violated this section, too,
since
> he made a big point about how far over the bicyclists were. Since
they
> were so far over, he could not have passed without moving into the
> opposing lane. But on a curve moving into the opposing lane is
> illegal.)
>
> -----------
>
> Summing it up from the driver's point of view:
>
> He comes upon two bicyclists riding abreast. Perhaps this is a
> violation of the law (an infraction--see below). Certainly it is
> annoying. What are his options:
>
> 1. Pull into the other lane and pass.
>
> Nope--since he's going around a curve with inadequate sight distance,
> this is illegal by 304.016.4. Can't do it.
>
> 2. Squeeze by within the lane, passing the bicyclists closer than
> safe.
>
> Nope, can't do that, either. 304.016.1 says you have to pass at a
safe
> distance and can't move back over until past the bicyclists. 304.012
> says you can't do anything dangerous.
>
> So what's left?
>
> 3. What behind until safe to pass; pass at safe distance.
Optional:
> curse bicyclist for rude traffic infraction.
>
> This is the driver's only legal course of action. The speed limit is
> low enough, and road has enough blind curves, hills, and so on
(meaning
> that the driver must be continually watching the road ahead or find
> himself driving off a cliff), that there is no way the driver can
> maintain with a straight face that he didn't have time to slow.
>
> If he'd slammed into the back of them, "didn't see them in time"
might
> be an excuse. But he didn't do that--he shoved them off the road.
>
> -----------
>
> "307.188. Every person riding a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon a
> street or highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be
> subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle as
> provided by chapter 304, RSMo . . . except as to those provisions of
> chapter 304, RSMo, which by their nature can have no application."
>
> (This section establishes that all traffic laws, rights, & duties
> applying to motorists, apply to bicyclists just as well.)
>
> ----------
>
> "307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at
less
> than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a
street
> or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as
safe,
> exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding
> in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding
> hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with
another
> vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast
when
> not impeding other vehicles."
>
> Note that bicyclists are required to ride as far to the "right side
of
> the roadway as safe".
>
> Note that Missouri law defines the "roadway" as the main traveled
way,
> "exclusive of the berm or shoulder". The injunction, in 307.190,
> requiring bicyclist to ride to the right of the *roadway*, then,
> absolutely does NOT require bicyclists to ride in the shoulder.
>
> Note that, if the lane is too narrow to share, the requirement for
the
> bicyclist to ride to the right is completely removed.
>
> I would say, based on having ridden at this location many times, that
> is is debatable whether there is room to share the lane. It is
about
> a 12 foot lane with a 1 foot shoulder--13 feet of surface total
(right
> of the double yellow line).
>
> Most references consider lanes 14 feet wide or more to be in
> "shareable" territory (it depends on exact configuration--existence
or
> not of curb, etc.). Less than 14 feet wide, though, is pretty much
> universally considered not shareable.
>
> Practically speaking, in the spot where this incident occured, you
> could probably share safely with a compact car that had slowed down
to
> ease past carefully.
>
> You couldn't share safely with a big truck or bus, or with someone
who
> insisted on zooming by at high speed. To pass safely, all those
people
> would need to move at least partly into the oncoming lane.
>
> ---------
>
> 307.193. Penalty for violation. Any person seventeen years of age or
> older who violates any provision of sections 307.180 to 307.193 is
> guilty of an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished
> by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five
> dollars. Such an infraction does not constitute a crime and
conviction
> shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on
> conviction of a criminal offense.
>
> (Riding two abreast when not allowed is an "infraction".)
>
> ----------
>
> --Brent
> brent [at] brenthugh.com
I'm almost assuredly wasting my time replying because everyone seems to
have already made up their mind what happened and what Missouri law
means so I'll point out just three things. First, it's rare for one
operator to be *solely* to blame in any collision that occurs in moving
traffic. Sharing the road means sharing responsibility no matter what
kind of vehicle one uses. In this case the cyclists were familiar with
the road, knew that it had blind curves and grades that obstructed
sight lines but still chose to ride two abreast. Their decision to ride
two abreast was a bad one and directly contributed to the crash.
Second, riding two abreast on that road was arguably unlawful. This was
not a two unit but a three unit crash. The cyclist nearest the
centerline of the roadway could have easily been charged with violating
307.190. Third, did anyone else notice that the driver in the crash was
wearing a USPS baseball cap? This is mere conjecture on my part but IF
he was actively engaged in delivering the US Mail at the time of the
crash he was, by statute, virtually "unticketable" for a wide variety
of offenses. USPS delivery vehicles, governmentally operated snow
removal equipment, construction equipment, and emergency vehicles that
are actively engaged in their respective endeavors are all exempt from
many of the provisions of State traffic codes.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|