I'm writing about one proposed bill that could change relations between motorists and bicyclists in North Carolina, and about a second bill that would put new limits on towing operators that remove cars from private parking lots.
If you've had experience with either of these issues, I'd like to hear from you. Please e-mail me and let me know how I can contact you. [See updates, added 5/10/10, below.]
1) With NCDOT reminding North Carolinians during Bicycle Safety Month that "bicyclists share the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers," legislators are considering a proposal to put new restrictions on groups of bike riders when they share the highways with car drivers.
A joint House-Senate committee next week will consider a draft bill that would prohibit cyclists from riding more than two abreast on the road. And when cyclists riding side-by-side are approached from the rear by a faster vehicle (i.e., car), they would be required to "move into a single file formation as quickly as practicable."
[Update added 5/10/10] Here's the draft text (it is likely to be amended before any votes):
SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 20-171.3. Operation of bicycles on streets and highways. Bicyclists riding bicycles upon a street or highway shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane. Persons riding two abreast shall move into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle..
2) Another proposed bill would govern situations where an unauthorized car is parked on a private lot.
Before that car could be towed away, there would have to be a big sign with the tow company's name and phone number. There would be new limits on how far away the car could be taken (15 miles) -- and how high a ransom the owner would have to pay to get the car back:
[Update added 5/10/10] Any person or company that tows or stores a vehicle pursuant to this section shall charge reasonable fees for the services rendered, and any fee charged shall not exceed the fee for other service calls the person or company provides for the same service, labor, and conditions.
Bruce Siceloff reports on traffic and transportation. A News & Observer reporter, editor and blogger since 1976, he took over the
Comments
Share the road
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 07:14 — donnakidderThe law says that if a fast moving vehicle approaches, the cyclists should move as rapidly as possible to a single file. Well, if the vehicle is moving fast, there isn't time to move over. This law isn't addressing the entire problem. It is one sided and ignores the rights of cyclists. While I agree, it can be frustrating if cyclists are taking up the entire road, there are times when I intentionally cycle well left of the white line. Why? Because if I don't, those FAST MOVING VEHICLES don't slow down. They try to pass on a curve with a double yellow line without proper visibility. They risk their lives, the life of the cyclist, and the life of the unsuspecting vehicle approaching from the other direction. If you want to change the law, start with a REQUIREMENT that the motorized vehicle SLOW down until it is safe to pass. If I notice that a vehicle has slowed down when I am cycling, I move over as far to the right as possible and wave thanks to the driver. But the more common occurence is the motorists never touches their brakes. They pass as close to the cyclist as possible on curves and never slow down. Is five minutes of one person's time really worth more than a life? donna
hunting cyclists
Fri, 05/14/2010 - 20:16 — LocalYokalThis new anti-cyclist law sounds like a hunting law for cyclists. Will the hunting season for cyclists be seasonal like for deer, maybe summer months only? Is it OK to simply shoot a cyclist or do you have to run them over with a car to kill them?
This potential law could hurt a cyclist's defense in court
Wed, 05/12/2010 - 15:56 — cmoorbergCyclists who agree with this law should rethink their position and the potential repercussions of this law. Let me explain a hypothetical situation:
Say my wife and I are out for an afternoon bike ride riding two-abreast. A motorist then comes up from behind and waits for a bit to pass, gets annoyed, then rams us - sending us to the hospital and ruining his front bumper. If he claims that we did not get single file fast enough he is not liable because we supposedly broke the law by "not getting out of his way". Now we are out of work for 10 weeks while we recover from our injuries and we end up footing the hospital bill and the body shop bill for his new bumper.
You see, this law only offers an opportunity for people to take away the rights of cyclists in court - all for only for taking an afternoon spin on a country road. The only way this law could be fair is if it required cars to pass in the passing lane, or to maintain a distance of three feet (what 15 other states have legally deemed safe in the last two years) while they pass a cyclist. That way if the car hits the cyclist from behind, it is their fault for not giving three feet of clearance, and not the cyclists fault for not getting the hell out of the way of an impatient motorist in time.
Pending legislation for bicyclists
Tue, 05/11/2010 - 12:05 — enandopc'Bottyguy' has stated it perfectly. Small groups (fewer than 6) of cyclists should move to single-file when approached by a vehicle. For larger groups, it's actually easier and safer for cars to pass a 2-abreast but shorter line of riders. Also as noted by 'Bottyguy', exceptions to the 2-abreast maximum need to be allowed (e.g., large, organized rides).
A modest proposal
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 20:55 — joenojustinI am in favor of obeying the law, if motorists obey the speed limit laws.
Assuming that it is ok to
Sun, 05/09/2010 - 15:01 — BottyGuyAssuming that it is ok to have three bicycles abreast when passing I agree with the two abreast rule. As a long time cyclist I find riders staying three abreast dangerous and rude. It makes it impossible for a bicyclist to pass without going in the oncoming lane and puts the outside cyclist too close to the oncoming traffic. There should be exceptions for large (mostly charity) rides, perhaps with permitting. It's difficult to prevent three abreast at the beginning of these rides as different speed bicyclists try to sort themselves out.
I disagree a bit with the "form a single file" rule when bicyclists are part of a group of six or greater. On most NC country roads it is impossible for an automobile to safely pass cyclists without using the oncoming lane ( some state highways have 16ft lanes and wide shoulders that allow a car to pass in the same lane but most county road do not have enough space). If a car has to pass 6 or more cyclists it is better for them to bunch up and ride side by side so that the car speed less time passing. For very large groups (say 20 or more) it would be far more dangerous for a car to try to share a lane and take a long time to pass than to wait to pass a tighter shorter/tighter group. Also the process of getting in single file and out again would take some time, and stretch the line out further as cyclist lose the draft.
I respect and am impressed by bicyclists..
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 13:23 — UNC1998They are doing something that I wish I had the desire to do, and getting in shape at the same time. If the new law passes it may serve to protect these cyclists by keeping potential frustrations of drivers at a minimum. The numbers of both vehicles and bicycles are increasing. It's vital that both parties understand the other, and take steps to protect themselves. Perhaps this new law would be doing that.