Comments on: Guide to Improving Laws

By: danc

danc — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 02:02:22 +0000

Paul, I checked all the states that permitted two abreast cycling unless impeding traffic. No change except for Alabama. Alabama never had a two abreast with restriction since 1980.

Section 32-5A-263 Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/32-5A-263.htm
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
(c) Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §12-105.)

Thank you for sharing this information, it’s been interesting to research.

By: danc

danc — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:56:53 +0000

Thanks Paul, I’ll update you on the States which allow two abreast unless impeding.

By: Paul Schimek

Paul Schimek — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:05:05 +0000

I checked my original spreadsheet from 2001. You should double-check these of course, since they may have changed. Here are the states that then permitted two abreast unless impeding:
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming

States where two abreast explicitly allowed without restrictions:
Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia

Also note that since 2009 Massachusetts permits two abreast, and calls out that all drivers need to move right when being passed, if reasonably possible (I wrote that section).

By: danc

danc — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 02:42:43 +0000

Do you have list of states with categorize by two-abreast laws? I’m looking for an example of state which permits two-abreast unless traffic is impeded.

By: Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona @ Arizona Bike Law Blog

Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona @ Arizona Bike Law Blog — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:48:57 +0000

[...] about legality, though? (roundup of laws across 50 states here)First, we will consider Arizona state law — The Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). The short [...]

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:46:57 +0000

Hi paul,
More questions about sidewalk:

The following states include “bicycle” in the definition of “vehicle” and prohibit vehicle use of sidewalks: Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, and North Dakota. Arguably, all sidewalk cycling is unlawful in those states.

But how does this play with the state’s applicability statute? E.g. in NV (and i imagine all or most others?) “NRS 484.503 Traffic laws apply to person riding bicycle. Every person riding a bicycle upon a ROADWAY has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle…”. The sidewalk is not part of the roadway. So is riding on the sidewalk really unlawful in NV? I would argue that it is not.

By: fred_dot_u

fred_dot_u — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:27:09 +0000

I fail to see what purpose a “bicycle license” would accomplish. A cyclist’s “operator’s license” if considered to be analogous to a motor vehicle operator’s license would purport to certify that the cyclist was trained and skilled to operate the bicycle. Drivers have motor vehicle operator’s licenses and we already know the limitations on that set of skills.

Many cyclists already claim to being skilled and experienced, yet few are truly trained in safe traffic cycling skills.

More appropriate would be to require that a motorist take a cycling safety course to certify that the motorist is capable of understanding safe cycling and provide appropriate consideration to cyclists on the roads.

By: Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:44:23 +0000

As a cyclist I would not be averse to having a cycling license for adult bicyclists. Although it would clearly result in many people refusing to ride at all, and although it would also likely result in some cyclists riding on sidewalks as pedestrians, it would tend to remove the excuse that many road users use to abuse or even assault law abiding cyclists.

Arrogant and abusive attitudes towards cyclists combined with dangerous driving is a big problem here in the US. Since apparently many Americans are not brought up with a sense of decency or mutual respect, we apparently need to legislate the ethics and common decency that many parents fail to instill in their kids.

By: Paul Schimek

Paul Schimek — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:15:02 +0000

I have never come across a state law, or even a local law, that requires bicyclists to ride facing traffic. However, every state, I believe, requires pedestrians to walk facing traffic if there is no sidewalk or shoulder. This is, I suspect, the source of some of the confusion. I have heard several reports that Boston teachers used to advise children to bicycle facing traffic, and I am sure there are other such examples.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:48:04 +0000

This seems to be a fairly common theme in the random letter-to-the-editor: “…I am from a state where bicyclists face traffic, and I have more than once avoided an erratic driver by…”

http://blog.cazbike.org/2010/06/letter-bicyclists-should-ride-facing.html

I assume it is totally false that there is any state where this is the case — but I wonder if it were ever true?