Pages

Showing posts with label Bicycle Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bicycle Law. Show all posts

Monday, February 4, 2013

It's Clear As Mud: IL Bicyclists May Ride To Right Of Slower Traffic

A controversy exists where none should for Illinois bicyclists.  Riding to the right of faster motor vehicle traffic is the law of the land.  But what is a cyclist legally to do when traffic to his or her left has slowed or stopped?  Must the bicyclist slow so as to maintain their position behind, or continue forward to pass on the right?  

On Friday, Chi.StreetsBlog.Org posted a story about a section of law that has confounded some regarding what the proper course is for Illinois cyclists.  Evidently some police officers in our state are confused as to what the law is.  As the story documents, after getting doored by a motorist parked along the curb, a pregnant female Chicago cyclist was recently ticketed by police for riding to the right of slower traffic.  StreetsBlog and the author of the piece, Keith Griffith, are to be applauded for shining a light on the erroneous interpretation of the law that has apparently brought about an injustice.  I was interviewed for the piece and expressed my surprise.  I would like to take this opportunity to explain how and when Illinois bicyclists may legally pass on the right.

In our state a bicyclist may pass on the right so long as it is reasonably safe to do so.  However, as the StreetsBlog story notes, some feel that cyclists may only pass on the right when there is no less than 8 feet of space available.  Rarely will there be 8 feet available between slowed and standing motor vehicle traffic and vehicles parallel parked along the right curb, at least in urban areas like Chicago.  Thus the law seems to bar passing on the right in many if not most circumstances available to the urban bicyclist; a prohibition that would likely make travel by bike nearly as much of a teeth grinding slog as is driving a car in the city.  The statute at issue is Section 11-704(b) of the Illinois Vehicle Code which states:
The driver of a 2 wheeled vehicle may not pass upon the right of any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the unobstructed pavement to the right of the vehicle being passed is of a width of not less than 8 feet.  625 ILCS 5/11-704(b)
It may be reasonable to at first think of a bicycle as a "2 wheeled vehicle."  After all, in many instances the Vehicle Code treats the bicycle as just another vehicle.  Section 11-1502 states that, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this Code..."  

Unfortunately, however, some end their analysis of the law here, creating the present confusion.  Our Vehicle Code may grant bicyclists many of the same rights as drivers, but it explicitly distinguishes what is a "vehicle" and what is not.  It is fundamental to first read and understand how words are defined in a statute when trying to make sense of it.  Most statutes have a definitions section and the Vehicle Code is no exception.  It defines the term "vehicle" in Section 1-217 as, "Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway or requiring a certificate of title. . ., except devices moved by human power. . ." (emphasis added).  Further, Section 1-106 defines a "bicycle" as, "Every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices."  A bicycle, therefore, is not a vehicle under the Code.  Hence, Section 11-704(b)'s "eight foot rule" can only apply to motorized two wheeled devices, motorcycles, scooters, mopeds and the like.

If the Illinois legislature had meant the eight foot rule to apply to bicycles it would have said so.  Instead, in enacting Section 11-704(b) it limited the requirement to "drivers" of "2 wheeled vehicle[s]."  No doubt, the possibility of confusion could have been avoided by explicitly stating that the Section was not to apply to human powered devices, but lawmakers are human and may not foresee every way in which their creations will be used or misused.  In any event, there are other helpful sources to which we may look to understand what the law is.  The Illinois Appellate Court took up a similar issue of statutory construction in People v. Schaefer, 654 N.E.2d 267, 274 Ill.App.3d 450 (2nd Dist. 1995).  In that case, the Court was asked to consider whether Illinois' drunk driving statute applied to bicyclists.  It found that it did not after considering many of the same issues in play regarding the eight foot rule.  Firstly, the Court found that the DUI statute only applied to "vehicles," and that bicycles are not defined as such under the Illinois Vehicle Code.  Secondly, it found that any vagueness regarding whether the DUI statute should or should not apply to bicyclists must in any event be construed to the benefit of the bicyclist.  Importantly, the Court stated that where a statute seeks to outlaw certain behavior any vagueness in the law must be construed narrowly to the benefit of the person to be charged.  It held:
It is not this court's function to judicially expand the scope of an ambiguous statute.  We determine that the language of the relevant statutes is not sufficiently definite to give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited.  In other words, there is no clear and express legislative intent to apply [the DUI statute] to bicyclists.  We conclude that [it] does not apply to bicyclists. Schaefer, 654 N.E.2d at 269.
As I have explained above, reading the definition of vehicle in the Vehicle Code makes it pretty clear that the eight foot rule does not apply to bicyclists.  However, pursuant to the holding in Schaefer, even if clarity cannot be found, any perceived vagueness as to whether Section 11-704(b) applies to bicyclists must benefit the cyclist cited for passing on the right in the absence eight feet of space.  At best, Section 11-704(b) fails to put bicyclists on notice that they may pass on the right, denying a clear and express legislative intent to apply that Section to them.

In Chicago, the intent of the powers that be to permit cyclists to pass on the right seems a bit clearer.  Section 9-52-040(c) of the Municipal Code of Chicago states:
Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction in the same direction and at all times giving the right-of-way to other moving vehicles.
No eight foot rule there; just a very reasonable requirement that bicyclists exercise due care when "passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction" at a slower speed.

Notwithstanding what the law is, there are two practical points that Illinois bicyclists should keep in mind.  Firstly, no matter what, when attempting to pass a slower vehicle on the right, a bicyclist must do so cautiously and only when conditions, including the amount of space available, allow safe passage.  Threading the needle through a tight space could get you hurt, killed or rightly ticketed.  Secondly, consider yourself on notice that many police officers will consider you in violation of the law and may give you a ticket for passing on the right.  You may eventually win the war, but you may face a battle.

As noted in the StreetsBlog piece, California cyclists recently dealt with the very same confusion.  It amended its motor vehicle code to explicitly allow cyclists to pass on the right, the new law taking effect on January 1, 2011.  Click here to read about the California law change.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Bicycling Police Officer Deals With Narrow Lane, Impatient Motorist

Below is a wonderful video of a police officer in Florida properly demonstrating how to ride in a narrow lane of traffic, one less than 14' wide.  He takes it.  In such a circumstance it is unsafe to ride far to the right.  Doing so invites motorists to pass you without switching lanes, nearly guaranteeing many close calls.  When you find yourself getting buzzed by passing drivers you should move to farther to the left, taking more of the lane.  If a motorist wants to pass, he or she will need to switch lanes to allow for a safe passing distance.  This is completely legal in Illinois.  The relevant statute requires bicyclists to ride as far to the right as is "practicable and safe." 625 ILCS 5/11-1505  The same statute states that bicyclists need not ride to the right when "substandard width lanes . . . make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a 'substandard width lane' means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

In the video, the officer also does a nice job of demonstrating one proper and legal way to make a left turn utilizing a left turn lane.  But the best thing about this video is the dopey motorist who decides he hates having a bicyclist in front of him and apparently does not realize that the cyclist is a cop.  How sweet would it be to have a badge to flash at the next motorist who lays on his horn from behind you?  Enjoy:


Thursday, January 13, 2011

Chicago Bike Program Produces New Video To Promote Road Sharing

Bicyclists and motorists alike can benefit from viewing this new video produced by the Chicago Bike Program.  It provides a nice overview of how best to share the road.


Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Video Demonstrates Rights and Duties of Bicyclists

Below is one of the best videos I have seen demonstrating the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists in traffic.  Everything explained and shown in this short film is consistent with Illinois law.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Video Offers Lessons On Chicago Bicycle Law

In June, the Chicago Department of Transportation and Chicago Police Department created a video that demonstratively outlines the legal duties and responsibilities that bicyclists and motorists owe to one another on city streets. The video was created as a training aid for police and CDOT personnel. I've watched it, and it is an excellent resource for all people using Chicago's streets. Many bicycle accidents are caused by simple inattention. However, I suspect that many accidents are due to a lack of knowledge. How many motorists know that they must give bicyclists at least three feet of space, or that they must yield to cyclists when attempting to turn left? How many bicyclists realize that, unless they are under 12 years of age, it is illegal to ride on city sidewalks? Take notes.

Traffic Enforcement for Bicyclist Safety from Chicago Bicycle Program on Vimeo.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Riding "Fixed" and the Law

Riding fixed gear bicycles has become increasingly popular over the last several years. Fixed gear bikes do not have freewheels so you cannot coast. Instead, the bike's rear cog is fixed to the rear wheel so that if the rear wheel is spinning so is the cog. When the bike is moving, either forwards or backwards, the chain is turning the pedals are spinning and the rider's legs are working. This bicycling phenomenon is very popular here in Chicago where a flat landscape and a large messenger community helped it catch fire. Often these bikes are ridden with a single mechanical front brake consisting of a lever mounted on the handlebars and a caliper attached to the frame which pinches the wheel to stop. There is no need for a rear brake as the back wheel can be slowed by the rider's legs. Perhaps just as often, however, (at least by my observation) fixed gear riders equip their bikes without a mechanical brake of any kind. Part of the point of riding one of these bikes is to enjoy the mechanical and aesthetic simplicity they offer. A brake lever, cable and caliper may be seen as unnecessary and disruptive to the bicycle's design.

The question is often asked, however, are brake less fixed gear bikes legal to ride on Chicago's streets? As posed, this question is not quite right. Bikes in Chicago, and in the whole of Illinois, must have a brake. The relevant Chicago ordinance states:

(b) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake that will enable the operator to make the braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement. 9-52-080.

The relevant Illinois statute states:

(c) Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will adequately control movement of and stop and hold such bicycle. 625 ILCS 5/11-1507.

Neither law defines the term "brake". Neither states that the required brake must consist of a lever, cable and caliper. As fixed gear riders know, the bicycle's drive train consisting of the fixed rear cog, chain, cranks, pedals and the rider's legs act as a braking system, one that works better than the uninitiated may think. It is quite possible, and in fact common, to abruptly stop pedaling locking up the rear wheel causing the bike to skid to a complete stop. It has been argued that chains can break and legs can cramp. But any braking system can fail. As designed, the drive train of a fixed gear bike will "enable" a rider to bring the bike to a complete and controlled stop. In my opinion, fixed gear bikes without traditional, mechanical brakes comply with Illinois and Chicago law.

A warning:

There was an infamous case in Portland, Oregon in 2006 in which a bike messenger was ticketed for riding her "brake less" fixed gear bike. The matter went to trial and the judge was not persuaded that the bike's drive train complied with the meaning of the word "brake" as used in the relevant Oregon statute (which had exactly the same wording as Chicago's ordinance). I have never heard of a bicyclist receiving a ticket in Chicago for riding without a brake. That's not to say it has never happened. However, given the shear number of people I see daily riding without a brake, it does not seem that the Chicago Police Department is cracking down on such riders. Even in Portland things are not so cut and dry. In a case brought against a fixed gear rider subsequent to the one described above, the bicyclist prevailed. That case was heard by a different judge, one who was a cyclist himself, who was persuaded that the fixed gear drive train sufficiently complied with Oregon law requiring a brake.

Another important point: In a personal injury case wherein a bicyclist is injured while riding without a brake, whether doing so was legal or illegal will be beside the point. A jury listening to a case arising out of injuries suffered to a fixed gear rider who had no brake at the time of the accident may be unsympathetic to his or her case. The jury may feel that the bicyclist is substantially at fault for the injuries due to not riding with a traditional brake and will refuse to compensate him or her for injuries sustained. Frankly, in an urban setting it is a bit crazy not to affix a front brake. Riding without one requires looking and thinking way ahead, to anticipate the need to stop before it's required. With pedestrians and vehicles and little dogs ready to leap into the bicyclist's path along nearly every city block, it's virtually impossible to anticipate everything. It is smart to have a front brake in case of an emergency. Having it will also help allay any concerns a jury may have, should an accident occur, about whether the bicyclist is himself or herself at fault for causing the sustained injuries.





Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Search This Blog