Is a bicyclist in right lane of multilane highway negligent?

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob Shanteau

unread,
Jun 4, 2011, 11:37:22 PM6/4/11
to BicycleDriving
Reed Bates was recently convicted in a local court in Texas of reckless driving for bicycling in the right lane of a multilane highway. In 1948, a California Appellate court found a bicyclist using the right lane of a multilane highway was not negligent when a motorist rear-ended him.

Below is a summary of that case as discussed in a ruling on another case, Stickel v. Durfee, 88 Cal. App. 2d 402 (Cal. App. 1948). The summary makes it clear that the motorist was negligent for trying to pass a bicyclist in the same lane and not using the left lane to pass. The motorist claimed that the bicyclist swerved in front of him at the last minute, but the judges decided that not to be relevant, perhaps because they realized that a driver is entitled to move sideways in his/her own lane.

Bob Shanteau

---
The case of Fraser v. Stellinger, 52 Cal.App.2d 564 [126 P.2d 653], upon which the respondent relies, is more nearly in point, but we think it is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
 ...
[T]he driver of defendants' truck, traveling 35 or 40 miles per hour, was following plaintiff who was riding a bicycle along the extreme right-hand side of a four-lane highway which was divided by a white line along the center. There was no traffic in the adjoining "fast traffic lane" where defendants, in the exercise of due care, should have been driving in overtaking and passing the bicycle on the left-hand side. The driver of the truck saw plaintiff 1,000 feet ahead of his machine, but continued in the extreme outside lane until he reached a point close to the bicycle, when, as the driver of the truck testified, he sounded his horn which the bicyclist did not hear. The truck driver testified that he was then "traveling in about the middle of the slow lane." That was the extreme outside lane where the plaintiff was riding his bicycle near the outer edge. The truck driver, traveling 35 or 40 miles per hour, clearly intended to pass the bicycle. He therefore belonged in the adjacent fast traffic lane. If the truck had been in the unobstructed lane where it belonged the accident could not have happened. In passing the bicycle, it was struck by the truck, or as the truck driver said, the bicycle suddenly turned left and struck the passing truck. The body of the plaintiff was picked up 15 or 20 feet east of the highway, and about 50 feet north of the place where the bicycle lay. The collision occurred in the easterly lane. From the facts recited in the opinion the driver of the truck appears to have been guilty of negligence as a matter of law, according to his own admissions.
---

LCI Beck

unread,
Jun 5, 2011, 9:24:17 AM6/5/11
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
The differerence in those two cases, Bob, is that one cyclist was operating in accordance with rules of the road, showing a duty of care and sharing the road by operating as far to the right as practicable within the marked lane, and reed was operating with deliberate disregard for the safety of others by operating down the middle of a the roadway of a divided highway, at dusk, to a level of disregard rising to reckless endangerment.

 The parameters of the case are different. Rights do not supercede the omnipresent obligation citizens possess to not infringe on others safety and reasonable expectations along public rights of way.

Beck, legal beagle and league cycling instructor


On Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:37:22 PM UTC-7, Bob Shanteau wrote:
Reed Bates was recently convicted in a local court in Texas of reckless driving for bicycling in the right lane of a multilane highway. In 1948, a California Appellate court found a bicyclist using the right lane of a multilane highway was not negligent when a motorist rear-ended him.



Bob Shanteau

 

On Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:37:22 PM UTC-7, Bob Shanteau wrote:


Bob Shanteau

---

---

John Forester

unread,
Jun 5, 2011, 12:43:32 PM6/5/11
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
There are errors in Beck's reply. In the Winter case, there was no evidence that the cyclist was operating "as far to the right as practicable". He was near the middle of the right-hand lane and the court made no finding regarding practicability. In the Briggs case, the court considered that the gravel along the right-hand edge of the lane made cycling not practicable.

Furthermore, Beck makes the reasonable claim that people must not act to endanger other people who are acting lawfully. But he then enlarges this to claim that Bates endangered motorists who would unlawfully collide with him from behind. Really now! The unlawful act of endangerment is by the motorist who would unlawfully collide with Bates, who was acting lawfully. This is Beck's now standard argument, that "The cyclist who rides in traffic will either delay the cars, which is Sin, or, if the cars don't choose to slow down, will be killed, which is Death, and the Wages of Sin is Death." Decades ago, I wrote that description of the cyclist-inferiority view, and, today, Beck is still presenting it.
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481    fore...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

Kenneth O'Brien

unread,
Jun 5, 2011, 4:02:26 PM6/5/11
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com, bicycle...@googlegroups.com

On Jun 5, 2011, at 9:24 AM, LCI Beck <yoope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The differerence in those two cases, Bob, is that one cyclist was operating in accordance with rules of the road, showing a duty of care and sharing the road by operating as far to the right as practicable within the marked lane, and reed was operating with deliberate disregard for the safety of others by operating down the middle of a the roadway of a divided highway, at dusk, to a level of disregard rising to reckless endangerment.
>

I've heard no claim that Reed was swerving laterally about. Since there has been no claim of that, Reed was not guilty of reckless endangerment. This is even more clear than in Bob's listed case - since in that case there was at least a claim of a swerve.

Your inability to understand that all descriptions of what happened describe a situation where Reed was not guilty of a _safety_ problem, makes you someone who opposes the cause of safe bicyclist access to public roadways. You are just another member of the public who holds a common ignorance about what is and isn't safe in roadway bicycling. Like many/mist people, you do not understands how a good system assigns a sensible set of _safety_ duties and responsibilities to road users.

Ken

Serge Issakov

unread,
Jun 5, 2011, 7:54:53 PM6/5/11
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Beck, you wrote:

Rights do not supercede the omnipresent obligation citizens possess to not infringe on others safety and reasonable expectations along public rights of way.

Please identify the reasonable expectation of others that you believe was infringed by riding a bicycle in a traffic lane.

Serge


--

LCI Beck

unread,
Jun 6, 2011, 9:10:04 AM6/6/11
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
are we talking reed bates here? 

Don't strawman me, i strongly believe cyclists have a right to the road, and that rights do not supercede duty of care to other road users. bikes do not automatically infringe on others while operating in the lane of traffic. I know how to ride a bike on a divided state highway, and have every confidence if i were to ride that road in Texas, i would not infringe on others rights while operating along that state highway.


 Reed Bates was recklessly endangering the public with deliberate disregard for the expected and reasonable road conditions on a divided state highway.

Steve A

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 6:59:35 PM6/27/11
to BicycleDriving
According to the testimony, which is consistent with the video I saw,
the situations are entirely different. When contact was made, Reed was
standing on the shoulder after another stop. The Deputy went to talk
to Reed to close out the 911 call and ordered him not to ride on the
road. When Reed did not comply with the order, he was arrested and the
charges were later increased. The deputy did not indicate he saw
anyone inconvenienced or endangered, and the video was not long enough
to judge how Reed intended to ride within the lane. Regardless of any
law, it illustrates that you do not want to disobey even an unsafe
order from a law officer unless you want to subsequently spend time in
jail.
-Steve A

Wayne Pein

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 4:23:45 PM1/19/12
to BicycleDriving

rod

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 5:39:42 PM1/19/12
to BicycleDriving
yikes, pretty bad. teddy bears aside, does the third video faithfully
convey cycling law in Colorado?

rod

On Jan 19, 4:23 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/bikeped/share-the-road/share-the...
>
> --
> Wayne
>
> www.bicyclingmatters.wordpress.comwww.humantransport.orgwww.bicyclinglife.com

Rodney Rudinger

unread,
Jan 19, 2012, 6:29:00 PM1/19/12
to rod, BicycleDriving
The first two videos were amusing, but the third worries me.  Are these people advocating riding crumbling pavement edges and rumble strips?  And what if I don't come to a complete stop in the opinion of the observing officer?  Is he going to go Joe Arpaio on me?

Kat Iverson

unread,
Jan 21, 2012, 12:46:29 AM1/21/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
The first two are funny, but the third one was aimed strictly at group
riders, and had much more advice about how to behave with respect to
each other rather than to motorists and the environment. Also, the
cop's statements about as far right as possible were as far wrong as
possible.

Section 42-4-1412 covers bicycle operation. You can find the complete
text at:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=
Click through to title 42, then click on Regulation of Vehicles and
Traffic (the 4th yellow folder down) Then you can scroll down on the
right side to 42-4-1412,

Paragraph 5 covers position on the road. I pasted the full text of that
paragraph below. The way I read it, cyclists only have to ride in the
right lane, with the usual exceptions for debris, passing, and left
turns. If the right lane is sharably wide, cyclists need ride only far
enough right to safely facilitate sharing. There is no mention of
unsharable width lanes, so, presumably, on such roads, being anywhere in
the right lane is legal. It also doesn't say anything about two or more
lanes in the same direction, so this should apply to any two-lane road,
even the usual, two-way road.


Section 42-4-1412
(5) (a) Any person operating a bicycle or an electrical assisted bicycle
upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride in
the right-hand lane, subject to the following conditions:
(I) If the right-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to
be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist shall ride far
enough to the right as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the
movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it
unsafe to do so.
(II) A bicyclist may use a lane other than the right-hand lane when:
(A) Preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private
roadway or driveway;
(B) Overtaking a slower vehicle; or
(C) Taking reasonably necessary precautions to avoid hazards or road
conditions.
(III) Upon approaching an intersection where right turns are permitted
and there is a dedicated right-turn lane, a bicyclist may ride on the
left-hand portion of the dedicated right-turn lane even if the bicyclist
does not intend to turn right.
(b) A bicyclist shall not be expected or required to:
(I) Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but
not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow lanes; or
(II) Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the right-hand side of
the roadway.
(c) A person operating a bicycle or an electrical assisted bicycle upon
a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near
to the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as judged safe by the
bicyclist, subject to the following conditions:
(I) If the left-hand lane then available for traffic is wide enough to
be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a bicyclist shall ride far
enough to the left as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the
movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it
unsafe to do so.
(II) A bicyclist shall not be expected or required to:
(A) Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but
not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles,
bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow lanes; or
(B) Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the left-hand side of the
roadway.


On 1/19/2012 1:23 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:
> http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/bikeped/share-the-road/share-the-road-videos.html
>
>

Kat Iverson

unread,
Jan 21, 2012, 1:16:38 AM1/21/12
to BicycleDriving
I looked a little farther and found that until 2009 the law required
riding a far right as practicable when being passed. It also required
riding on the shoulder if there is one. I can't tell what other
restrictive provisions there might have been. This bill has only the
paragraphs that were amended. (They added "electrical assisted bicycle"
to the law)

Here is the house amendment:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1239163160066&ssbinary=true
That is not now in effect because the senate amended it the same year
and completely re-wrote paragraph 5.

Depending on how old the video is, the cop was wrong only in mixing up
practicable with possible. If it is a recent video, then he is out of date.

Kat Iverson

Bob Bayn

unread,
Jan 21, 2012, 10:25:18 AM1/21/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
So, where is Colorado's requirement to ride on a "suitable shoulder"? I find all sorts of vague references to such a law, but I can't find it in michie.com.

Bob Bayn
Cache Valley, UT but occasionally "vacationing" in Colorado to see grandchildren

________________________________________
From: bicycle...@googlegroups.com [bicycle...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Kat Iverson [kat_i...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:46 PM
To: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [BicycleDriving] Worst videos ever.

--

Bob Sutterfield

unread,
Jan 21, 2012, 10:42:32 AM1/21/12
to BicycleDriving
Kat Iverson wrote:
I looked a little farther and found that until 2009 the law required riding a far right as practicable when being passed.  It also required riding on the shoulder if there is one...

Depending on how old the video is, the cop was wrong only in mixing up practicable with possible.  If it is a recent video, then he is out of date.

YouTube says it was "Uploaded by cdotmedia on Nov 30, 2009".

There are lots of "bicycle safety tips" posted on YouTube and elsewhere (e.g. here).  A few of them even offer accurate and safe advice.  A few range from benign to useless.  Lots of them, when followed, will result in increased risk for the cyclist.  Whether the publisher is an individual or an advocacy organization or a government, seems to have little correlation with the quality of the advice.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages