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?

The absence of track now gives bicyclists freedom of movement without fear of falling. In the past few weeks I have easily and without worry passed stopped buses and doubled-parked cars and executed left turns — even in the rain.

I am trying to organize a Freedom Ride to mark the paving over of the trolley tracks. It would be fitting to do it around the July 4 holiday.

Now for the first time in the 16 years I have lived in Jamaica Plain, all of the major streets are reasonably smooth and free from hazards. Even Amory Street, which had been in horrible shape as long as I can remember, is now covered in smooth black asphalt from end to (almost) end. Lamartine St was repaved a few years ago, after being horribly potholed and dug up by utilities for years.

There is still more work to be done: the Southwest Corridor path is showing its 20 year age. Tree roots have caused heaves in many places. Crosswalks are missing. The original design defects, such as narrow curb cuts, lack of side clearance, and, in one place, a very steep slope are still there. But don’t hold your breath waiting for repairs. The DCR is chronically underfunded. Ten years ago when I asked about improving the surface quality of the path they offered to supply the materials if I could provide a crew of volunteers. The path needs to be rebuilt in many places and tree root barriers installed. I can think of only one case where badly needed path improvements were actually made (the old section of the Cape Cod Rail Trail). There are too many counter-examples: the heavily used Charles River paths are still a horror show.

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.

Bikes Belong
The Mayor needs to state clearly (ok, “clearly” is asking a lot) that bicyclists have the same right to use every road in Boston has people in cars, and that includes all of the road (when necessary). City and state law already says as much, but most people don’t know this or don’t believe it. Also, have the Police Commissioner issue a directive to all officers explaining that bicyclists have the same rights as motorists (last month Boston police officers told me, on two occasions, that bicyclists don’t belong on the road).

Road Surface Quality
Require permanent repairs after utility work, rather than accepting payments and then never completing the work. Do a better job at taking complaints about road surface quality (especially on the web) and also survey street conditions pro-actively. We know now that they don’t do any of this. Where needed, replace whole sections of defective pavement, rather than merely filling holes by hand.

Street Design
Issue a directive, signed by the Transportation Commissioner, that henceforth all street reconstruction projects will be reviewed for bicycle-friendliness, and will meet minimum standards. Announce a study to consider “road diets” for certain wider streets — remove travel lanes and replace them with turn lanes (usually left turn) and a wider parking or right travel lane so that cyclists can stay out of the door zone. Here are some candidates to start with: Columbus/Tremont along the Southwest Corridor, Hyde Park Ave, Centre St in West Roxbury, Seaver St, and Blue Hill Ave (especially where it is three lanes in each direction). On main roads where the right lane is too narrow for a cyclist and motorist to share side-by-side, post signs: “NARROW LANE: CHANGE LANES TO PASS CYCLISTS.”

Drain Grates
Ask the Boston Water and Sewer Commission to issue a directive that all drain grates shall be installed (and re-installed) so that their slots are perpendicular to the flow of traffic. Remove and replace (or at least re-oriented) the illegal, wheel-catching drain grates installed on Frontage Road as part of the Central Artery project.

Bicycle Fund
Announce the creation of a bicycle fund with an annual allocation of, say, $50,000. This will be used to respond to complaints from the public about path (and maybe road) defects, missing signs, and other small projects. For starters, it would be nice to move some of the boulders on Circuit Drive in Franklin Park near the ranger station so that you could ride the complete circuit without dismounting. Also, some signs showing the connection between the various pieces of the Emerald Necklace paths would make them much more accessible.

Washington Street Bus Lane
Change the signs to permit bicycles, as was promised in the design adopted by the city in 1999.

Southwest Corridor Path
It’s now over 20 years old and needs to be replaced in places, since tree routes have caused heaves. But at least fix the walk light at Ruggles Street, which has failed to display the walk light (inbound) since at least October 2007, and which has a countdown display that is installed but not functioning (in either direction).

To make matters worse, the city’s long-time policy is to require only temporary repairs after utility companies dig up the street. The city then comes in and makes a permanent repair — within two or three years. In the interim, the pavement can deteriorate significantly. This is why we live in an essentially permanent state of potholes. The Boston Globe ran an expose of this practice in 2005, with on-record quotes from national experts saying that the city’s policy was completely wrong. Nothing changed. Mayor Menino finally did something about the problem when his own car ran into a pothole. “I’m not going to stand for it” he said, and promptly halted all street excavations. But the ban lasted just 5 days. The city let the utilities and contractors continue their work after scolding them and showing them pictures of their bad temporary repairs. But one contractor justly asked: “There is money that goes into a fund and is supposed to go toward the permanent fix. The temporary patches will last a little time, but they’re not designed for the long term. The question is why isn’t the city making the permanent patch?”

And when the city crews do fill potholes, they usually convert the hole into a bump. Their only repair technology is to shovel in hot asphalt and tamp it down by hand. They don’t do any real repairs–except when the entire street is repaved, which can take years or decades. The city needs to survey and fix all road defects, and enlist citizens in reporting them. The NYC DOT has a nicely illustrated page on this. So I know it’s possible. But in my lifetime?

Remember Me? I was the first birthday gift that you asked for and actually got. We’d get away and explore new places, limited only by imagination and sunlight. All the other kids wished they were you: lucky, fast, and free. What do kids wish for now?

Turns out it’s part of a national ad campaign “designed to inspire non-cyclists to ride.” I’m not sure that these ads will be that effective, although a second part of the campaign is promised. For the past 10 years Bikes Belong has tried to increase bicycling by promoting “more and safer places to ride.” This usually means grants to support advocacy for bike paths. How about promoting the network of places we already have — the public roads? It turns out that the Bikes Belong Foundation, a non-profit spin-off launched in 2006, has a “Share the Road” project that so far has done one pilot event at Stanford. I hope this effort expands. From 2003 to 2006, Bikes Belong funded a few bicyclist skills training programs, but no longer does. There was no explanation about this change on the website.

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.

I wanted to use this site to make available several pieces of work I’ve done over the years that many people have found useful:

• The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning, a good place to get started
• A Guide to Improving Traffic Law Relating to Bicycling (note: I will be doing updates)
• Enhancing Bicycle Safety: Law Enforcement’s Role (Note: remove pop-up blocker.)

I also wanted to use the site to highlight new developments as they come up. I hope that we will also feature posts from other authors.