Bad bicycle reporting on Channel 5 in Kansas City - Page 4 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-19-2005, 01:26 PM

jj wrote:

> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.

If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.

Rich

02-19-2005, 02:20 PM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:26:52 -0700, Rich <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
>> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
>> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
>> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.
>
>If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
>slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
>that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
>ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.
>
>Rich

That is more cut and dried. Actually when you think about it that's the
reason that every driver has to pass a driving test. However it's not
necessary for a cyclist to pass a cycling in traffic test you know. ;-)

I guess I'd like to see a legal definition of 'impeding traffic'. Is it
impeding traffic to delay one car for 20 seconds? 30 seconds? Hard to say.
A good law would include this in the definition, I'd think.

Though I'm basically on the side of the cyclists, I'd have to say, imo, the
riding two abreast is a bad law, or a bad idea. In fact I can't understand
how it came to be. Is it because of some innate need for comraderie between
cyclists? I mean it's definitely a skill, maybe not as much as drafting
correctly, but requires more skill and daring than riding in the park, and
not every cyclist has the dexterity, awareness and bike handling to do this
safely.

jj

02-19-2005, 02:20 PM

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:26:52 -0700, Rich <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>jj wrote:
>
>> Somewhat playing the devil's advocate, the riders may be somewhat
>> incompetent, and slightly less than optimally prepared. They may in fact
>> think they are not impeding traffic and might in fact be incorrect.
>
>If they're impeeding traffic, then they're at fault. If someone has
>slow reflexes, that does not give them the right to run through a light
>that just turned red. Lacking the skills to obey a law (or being
>ignorant of the law), will not stand up as a defense in court.
>
>Rich

That is more cut and dried. Actually when you think about it that's the
reason that every driver has to pass a driving test. However it's not
necessary for a cyclist to pass a cycling in traffic test you know. ;-)

I guess I'd like to see a legal definition of 'impeding traffic'. Is it
impeding traffic to delay one car for 20 seconds? 30 seconds? Hard to say.
A good law would include this in the definition, I'd think.

Though I'm basically on the side of the cyclists, I'd have to say, imo, the
riding two abreast is a bad law, or a bad idea. In fact I can't understand
how it came to be. Is it because of some innate need for comraderie between
cyclists? I mean it's definitely a skill, maybe not as much as drafting
correctly, but requires more skill and daring than riding in the park, and
not every cyclist has the dexterity, awareness and bike handling to do this
safely.

jj

02-19-2005, 02:39 PM

> 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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

02-19-2005, 02:39 PM

> 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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

02-19-2005, 02:52 PM

jj wrote:

> However it's not
> necessary for a cyclist to pass a cycling in traffic test you know.

Yea. Too bad, though. My guess is they figure a car can pretty easily
kill innocent people, so they want to make sure you have some some level
of skill before operating it. But a bicycle is likely only to kill the
operator, so it's up to you to assure you're qualified to operate it.
And in reality, this isn't a bad standard, as it'd be overwelming to
have to pass a test to do everything.

> Though I'm basically on the side of the cyclists

While I am a cyclists, I'm on the side of common courtesy. And riding
two abreast when it results in slowing traffic (even one car), I think
is not wise, and not in the interest of anyone.

> I'd have to say, imo, the
> riding two abreast is a bad law, or a bad idea. In fact I can't understand
> how it came to be. Is it because of some innate need for comraderie between
> cyclists?

I think it's not a problem if it doesn't affect anyone else. So I'm not
against riding two abreat, and have done it a lot when riding with my
wife. However, we were very consious of traffic, and always got in
single file when traffic aproached us. And we planned ahead, we knew
who was going to speed up and who was going to slow down so it was
fairly quick to do. That said, even we sometimes got caught off
guard..... so now we ride a tandem.

Rich

02-19-2005, 02:52 PM

jj wrote:

> However it's not
> necessary for a cyclist to pass a cycling in traffic test you know.

Yea. Too bad, though. My guess is they figure a car can pretty easily
kill innocent people, so they want to make sure you have some some level
of skill before operating it. But a bicycle is likely only to kill the
operator, so it's up to you to assure you're qualified to operate it.
And in reality, this isn't a bad standard, as it'd be overwelming to
have to pass a test to do everything.

> Though I'm basically on the side of the cyclists

While I am a cyclists, I'm on the side of common courtesy. And riding
two abreast when it results in slowing traffic (even one car), I think
is not wise, and not in the interest of anyone.

> I'd have to say, imo, the
> riding two abreast is a bad law, or a bad idea. In fact I can't understand
> how it came to be. Is it because of some innate need for comraderie between
> cyclists?

I think it's not a problem if it doesn't affect anyone else. So I'm not
against riding two abreat, and have done it a lot when riding with my
wife. However, we were very consious of traffic, and always got in
single file when traffic aproached us. And we planned ahead, we knew
who was going to speed up and who was going to slow down so it was
fairly quick to do. That said, even we sometimes got caught off
guard..... so now we ride a tandem.

Rich

02-19-2005, 03:24 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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:
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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

02-19-2005, 03:24 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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:
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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

02-19-2005, 03:24 PM

"jj" wrote:
> "Art Harris" wrote:
>>As someone
>>else pointed out here, if you're going to ride two abreast, the burden is
>>on
>>you to know when traffic is approaching.

> I'd have to quibble with your last statement, Art. Where do you derive
> that
> "the burden is on you to know when traffic is approaching"? If the law
> allows riding two abreast then it has to allow for significant time to
> single up, including problems, road conditions, and communication.

I don't think so. Where I live, the New York State law (Section 1234b)
simply says:

"Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being
overtaken by another vehicle."

There are no "if, and's, or but's." You SHALL ride single file when being
overtaken. So if, for whatever reason, you're not riding single file when
overtaken, you're in violation. That puts the burden on the cyclist to
watch/listen for traffic and react accordingly. If the rider can't or isn't
willing to do that, he should ride single file.

Now of course, even if the cyclist is in violation, it doesn't give a
motorist the right to hit him, any more than he could run over a person
lying in the road.

I agree that the whole "riding two abreast" thing is kind of strange. This
may be a holdover from a simpler time. Cyclists (particularly those on
casual rides) like to converse, and if there is little or no traffic,
there's no harm in riding two abreast. Personally, I'll only do it on very
quiet roads, or if there's a very wide shoulder.

Art Harris