* Phoenix says: “You have the right to use . . . the sidewalks in business districts if you feel unsafe, unless posted signs say otherwise.” CORRECTION: You may never ride on sidewalks in business districts, and posted signs may prohibit sidewalk use elsewhere.

* Phoenix says: ”You have the right to ride two abreast on any roads with multiple lanes in the same direction. (If there is only one lane in each direction, you must ride single file, but may pass on the right.)” CORRECTION: You may ride two abreast at any time. However, the rider on the left must move right if failing to do so prevents someone from passing where it would be otherwise safe to do so.

* Phoenix says: “You must follow all traffic laws — that means stopping at lights and crosswalks and riding on the right side of the road.” CORRECTION: You may go when the traffic signal is green, but may not enter the intersection when it is red. You only need to slow or stop at a crosswalk when it is not controlled by signals and a pedestrian is in it or within 10 feet of your half of the road. You must generally use the right half of the road, not necessarily near the curb.

* Phoenix says: “You must keep to the right when passing a car.” CORRECTION: While you may pass on the right, it is almost always safer to pass on the left. Passing on the right leaves you vulnerable to motorists turning right across your path and puts you within range of opening doors of parked cars and even sometimes of motorists stopped in a queue at a light.

* Phoenix says: “You must signal your intention to stop or turn using either hand.” CORRECTION: The law that went into effect on April 15, 2009 added, “provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously, and shall not be made when both hands are needed for the safe operation of the bicycle.” Furthermore, the general rule on giving signals says that they must be made “before stopping said vehicle or making any turning movement which would affect the operation of any other vehicle.”

* Phoenix says: “You must give pedestrians the right of way when riding on a sidewalk, and give a shout before passing any pedestrian on the right.” CORRECTION: Almost correct. The law says “A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian,” but of course it doesn’t say “on the right.”

* Phoenix says: “You must carry all items in a basket, rack, or trailer.” CORRECTION: The law says, “The [bicycle] operator shall not carry any package, bundle or article except in or on a basket, rack, trailer or other device designed for such purposes.” The phrase”other device” leaves room for backpacks, water bottle cages, paniers, and even shopping bags. The point is that your hands must be free to operate the bike, not that you must use a government-sanctioned carrying mechanism.

More importantly, the summary of “bike laws” from the MassBike website, on which this short Phoenix article is based, is fundamentally misleading, because it summarizes the special rules that apply only to bicycles. The most important rules for safety apply to bicyclists and motorists equally. These include the rules about where to ride on the road, how to pass and be passed, how to make turns, and when to yield the right of way.

And in the lead article in the same special insert, there are a number of statements that could be contested, but none more so than this one which appears without refutation:

“When it’s car versus cyclist, the car always wins,” warns [Boston] Transportation Commissioner [Tom] Tinlin. His advice: “Back off and be safe.”

We’ve heard this canard many times before. It’s absurd and dangerous. You could just as well say, “When it’s cyclist versus asphalt, the asphalt always wins. When it’s car versus 18-wheeler, the 18-wheeler always wins.” So back off and be safe. Don’t drive your car on any road where big trucks are allowed. Don’t ride your bike except on soft grass.

Too many bicyclists are already scared into riding dangerously. “Back off” means keep far to the right edge of the road, preferably on the sidewalk. Ride facing traffic so you can see the cars coming and jump out of the way to avoid them. Ride in the door zone because otherwise motorists might get mad at you. People do these dangerous things because everyone has told them riding in the road means sudden death. And thus they suffer crashes and injuries. The last thing we need in promoting bike safety is people in positions of authority such as Commissioner Tinlin repeating this stuff.

Use as much of the road as you need and be safe. Happy bike week.

P.S. The AAA gets it even more wrong, with such “bike safety” advice as “Bicycles should stay to the right along the curb” and “Walk a bike across an intersection rather than riding.” See the post on the MassBike website.

Wait. A police car? The officer couldn’t have not seen him. How about a little enforcement here? I go back to the intersection, where the school crossing guard is saying something — maybe to the officer. I say I want him to come back. She motions, he reverses. I go to his open window and say — hey, did you see that wrong-way bicyclist going fast? He nearly hit me. He asks for a description, which I give. He gives an impression that he might do something to find this guy. But probably not. Nah, not likely.

The new bike law in Massachussetts allows police officers to use the standard ticket book they always carry to give tickets to bicyclists. It also requires training — for example in why wrong-way riding is dangerous. But it’s expecting too much to see any actual enforcement.

The new law requires adding bicycle-related content into basic training of police recruits.  The content “may” be included in in-service training. In fact, the State Police already has content developed by MassBike as part of its (optional) in-service training materials. The fact that there is a new law provides MassBike with a great opportunity to get in-service police training (ostensibly on the new material, but in fact also about the existing law that officers are not informed of).

The bill that passed makes changes to the text without rewriting it cleanly. My original version was more wordy because it rewrote the text. This was a problem, because a) it was too long for most people to read and b) there was no way to tell what is new. It turns out that a huge problem with legislation in Massachusetts is that there is no legislative staff that prepares a neutral summary of what the bill does and compares it to the current law (for example, using strike out and bold face to indicate deletions and insertions). Early on in the process we got complaits from several people about items in the bill which were merely taken verbatim from existing law.

Another part MassBike needs to follow up on (besides the police training) is the enforcement provision — which will now use the same procedure as for motorists. We will need to make sure that the Registry changes the ticket form so that it has a check box for “bicyclist ” and that they have a procedure to insure that the ticket does not affect the bicyclist’s drivers license status or insurance “points” (both as required by the law).

One aspect of the new law is problematic for both instruction and enforcement. The new law does not delete this only-in-Massachusetts rule:”the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way.” Moreover, it adds, “It shall not be a defense for any motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of auto traffic.” My preferred solution was to change the rules for overtaking on the right so they match the Uniform Vehicle Code and most other states: you can do it if there is enough room, but you have the responsibility to assure that you can do it safely. Massachusetts law says that it’s okay for bicyclists to pass on the right regardless of the conditions — even if the vehicle ahead is signaling right and starting to turn right.  While it’s nice to collect damages in the event of a collision, it’s better to avoid the collision, which requires bicyclists to know when it’s not safe to pass on the right and to wait or pass on the left instead.

DeMarco does not quote it, but the legal definition of motorized bicycle in Massachusetts is “a pedal bicycle which has a helper motor, or a non-pedal bicycle which has a motor, with a cylinder capacity not exceeding fifty cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission, and which is capable of a maximum speed of no more than thirty miles per hour.” So a moped (pedal bicycle with a motor) is a motorized bicycle, but so is a small motorcycle with no pedals. Curiously, the Registry of Moter Vehicles has decided that a pedal bicycle with an electric motor is not a moped, even though this statutory definition would certainly seem to include such vehicles, since the statute says that any pedal bicycle with a helper motor is a moped.  Even more curiously, some legislators (on advice of misinformed police, perhaps) were convinced that mini motorcycles are neither mopeds nor motorcycles, and so came up with a third category, motorized scooter, which is “any 2 wheeled tandem or 3 wheeled device, that has handlebars, designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, powered by an electric or gas powered motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion” but is not “a motorcycle or motorized bicycle or a 3 wheeled motorized wheelchair.” Got it? The rules they created for motorized scooters are even more discriminatory than those for bicycles (motorized or not).

But back to DeMarco’s article. He correctly points out that “it’s illegal for moped drivers to go faster than 25 miles per hour, no matter what the posted speed limit is.” This seems to me to be unfair and discriminatory. Bicyclists often go faster than 25 mph.

When DeMarco uses police officers as an authority, he often puts forth assertions which don’t match the law.  DeMarco writes, “Maffei, of the Cambridge Police, said that moped riders often zip to the front of the line at a red light by riding between two lanes of cars. But riding between cars is illegal – motorcyclists and bicyclists aren’t supposed to do it, either – and carries a $25 fine.”  But that’s not what the law says.

Chapter 89 Section 4A is about as clear as it gets for Mass. traffic laws: “Section 4A. When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety. The operators of motorcycles shall not ride abreast of more than one other motorcycle, shall ride single file when passing, and shall not pass any other motor vehicle within the same lane, except another motorcycle.”

So drivers of motorcycles (but not bicycles or motorized bicycles) cannot pass another motor vehicle within the same lane (except another motorcycle), and all drivers must drive within one lane, and yield when changing lanes. This means that an operator of a narrow vehicle that is not a motorcycle can overtake another vehicle within the same lane, provided that he or she obeys the rules for overtaking (chiefly, maintaining a safe distance). If you think the statute means that a bicyclist or moped rider cannot pass a line of stopped cars within the same lane under any circumstances, then it must also mean that a motorist cannot pass a bicyclist without completely changing lanes under any circumstances. Motorists would not tolerate such an interpretation.

What about parking mopeds? “Tinlin, Boston’s transportation commissioner, also said his staff can’t issue parking tickets to mopeds parked on sidewalks. However, Boston has rules against chaining bicycles to posts and parking meters. If a moped owner chains her vehicle, parking officials might cut the chain and tow the vehicle.” Ah! Those mysterous rules again! I will give $100 to anyone who can find me a published copy (published before today, that is). The previous version I heard is that it is illegal to affix a bike to any “city asset.” This would presumably include bike racks (unless they are a liability). But I have search in vain in the municipal code. Mr. Mayor, you want to promote bicycling. Could you publish fair rules about bicycle parking on city sidewalks, rather than have your officials repeatedly assert a secret policy to remove locked bicycles without notice?

I am curious if police officers treat mopeds as motorcycles rather than bicycles in terms of traffic enforcement. That is, will they cite moped riders from time to time, or ignore them completely? Is there a way of citing a moped in the Uniform Citation book?

UPDATE June 27, 2008: Aaron Fine was sentenced to two years, but only two months in prison, followed by a suspended sentence for six years with supervised probation, including these special conditions: mental health counseling, abstaining from driving for four months, 600 hours of community service, and no contact with the Shatz family.

UPDATE: David Traub, Press Officer for the Norfolk District Attorney’s office, has explained that the basic facts initially reported were incorrect. The bicyclist was not riding against traffic.  She was turning into her driveway. Her bicycle hit the truck between a 45 and 90 degree angle.  There were no surviving witnesses to the collision other than the truck driver, who did not testify. The judge convicted Fine of Negligent Operation because he was operating without the proper license; the truck had safety defects; and the truck was overloaded. He wrote, “The statute is violated whether or not the negligent operation actually causes harm.” The judge also added, in a footnote, “The Court might subject vehicle speed and manner of approaching and passing a child on a bicycle to criticism, but only in hindsight and hence these are not part of the litany of faults.” The judge acquitted on the charge of negligent homicide, saying that he found it “more probable than not that the negligent conduct described above was the legal cause of the egregious harm suffered in the accident” — but not “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The investigation apparently did not look into violations of traffic law committed by the bicyclist, nor did the judge comment on any possible violations. We are interested not in who is to blame for this crash, but how such events can be prevented. The case was not one of “fast motorist runs into slow bicyclists from behind” — the scenario that generally comes to mind when the average person reads about a car hitting a bike. The bicyclist was making a left turn. Any person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle is required to give a signal before “making any turning movement which would affect the operation of any other vehicle” (MGL Ch. 90 Sec. 14B). We don’t know if the bicyclist made such a signal, or looked behind to see if faster traffic was approaching. We do know, however, that the truck driver acted as if the bicyclist was not intending to turn. To be safe all bicyclists must look behind before changing positions on the road, and then must either wait until it is safe to move.

This is the original post:

The trial of Aaron Fine starts tomorrow. Fine is a 34 year old police officer who drove a landscaping truck into a 10-year-old girl riding a bicycle in Foxboro, Mass, USA. He faces charges of motor vehicle homicide, operating a motor vehicle without a license, failure to safely pass a bicyclist and operating at an unsafe speed, and could be sent to prison for 2 and 1/2 years. He has been on unpaid leave from the Mansfield Police Department, pending the outcome of the trial, probably since the crash occurred on December 2, 2006.

That day 10-year-old Rosie Shatz rode her bike from her house to a nearby barn to get hay for her class’s pet guinea pig. A follow-up story after the initial press reports mentioned that the Foxboro Chief of Police “indicated that Rose was riding her bike against the flow of traffic.” Update: this statement turns out to be incorrect.

If these facts are correct, wrong-way riding was the direct cause of this crash. Fine did not have the proper license for the truck he was driving. But I don’t see how this is relevant, given that he did what a reasonable person might well do when confronted with a wrong-way cyclist on a narrow road: move left to let her pass. So why was he charged with “failure to safely pass a bicyclist”? Why was he charged with speeding, given that the Foxboro Police Chief told the press that “He was going less than the speed limit”?

If convicted, Fine could be sent to prison, and probably would never be able to work as a police officer again. This seems to me a gross miscarriage of justice (again, unless there are other relevant facts that have not been reported in the press).

Yes, Rosie Shatz’s death was tragic, and yes, she is a victim. But it was tragic because it was avoidable–by simply sticking to the right side of the road. And she is a victim, because in all likelihood she had ridden on the wrong side before, and probably no police officer (or anyone else) told her to do otherwise. I would not be surprised if there are parents and teachers who even today tell children to ride on the wrong (left) side of the road. The best way we can honor this tragic loss of someone so young is to prevent future tragedies, and the way we can do that is to get police officers to enforce the rules of the road, even for bicyclists, and, yes, even for children.

I had a look at the manual that comes with all Jamis bikes. It advises, “Ride in designated bike lanes, on designated bike paths or as close to the edge of the road as possible, in the direction of traffic flow or as directed by local governing laws.” The first part of the sentence is exceedingly poor advice, and does not match any traffic laws in the U.S. that I know of.

It continues: “Stop at stop signs and traffic lights; slow down and look both ways at street intersections.” Stop even if the light is green? Slow down and look even if you have the right of way?

And more: “Remember that a bicycle always loses in a collision with a motor vehicle, so be prepared to yield even if you have the right of way.”

Do their lawyers make them say this stuff? Or if I send them a nice letter will they change it to reflect the law and, better yet, good riding practice.