NCDOT has released a draft report of recommendations for the H232 Bicycle Safety Law Study. The draft report includes recommendations that differ substantially from the recommendations of the H232 committee. For instance, the NCDOT report recommends legislation limiting riding abreast (the committee voted unanimously against such legislation) and recommends legislation requiring bicyclists to ride on the right side of marked travel lane (the committee took no action on this issue; BikeWalk NC had prepared comments on lane positioning but was not given the opportunity to present them).
The Draft report may be read here: http://www.bikewalknc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/H-232-report.pdf
The Draft Appendices to the report may be read here: http://www.bikewalknc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Appendices_sm.pdf
NCDOT’s page that includes committee meeting minutes is here:
BikeWalk NC urges cyclists in NC to review the draft report and send NCDOT comments before December 29. BikeWalk NC recommends that no new legislation be promoted to restrict where a bicyclist may ride within a marked travel lane or riding abreast within a single marked travel lane.
Please email questions and comments to NCDOT (at bwpoole@ncdot.gov) by 5:00 p.m. on December 29, 2015. Include “H232 Comments” in the title. Comments should be addressed to “NCDOT” or to the “Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee.” Email comments will be included as an addendum to the appendix. The final report and appendix will be sent to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee by December 31, 2015.
BikeWalk NC Recommendation:
We recommend that supporters email NCDOT via the feedback address – bwpoole@ncdot.gov – and tell them:
(1) Restricting solo bicyclists to the right half of marked travel lanes interferes with defensive bicycling practices such as lane control, staying safely out of the door zone of parked cars, improving visibility at junctions (to deter left-cross and drive-out collisions), and avoiding right-hook crashes. Taking away half of bicyclists’ existing travel lane rights encourages police and motorist harassment of safe cyclists and invites legal problems for cyclists via the state’s contributory negligence law.
(2) The riding abreast issue should be handled with public education on safe group riding practices as the committee recommended. The committee voted unanimously against recommending new regulation that would limit riding side-by-side within a single lane. The committee felt that existing law is sufficient for cyclists who exercise safe side-by-side cycling and that new regulations on cycling abreast within a single lane would create unnecessary enforcement problems, particularly when groups of cyclists rotate and where they stop at traffic signals.
(3) Allowing or encouraging each municipality to enact and enforce its own local regulations and permitting process for group rides creates a bureaucratic nightmare for ride organizers, whose rides can easily pass through several different municipalities and is insensitive to those who worked diligently to produce a sensible and practical permitting process at the state level.
Note that NCDOT employee Brian Poole (bwpoole@ncdot.gov) is the messenger here and not the author of the things we find objectionable in the report. Please be respectful to Brian and give him substantive feedback that can be forwarded to the report author(s).
Lastly, note that posting comments on our (BikeWalk NC) site below, while appreciated, does not send feedback to NCDOT. Use bwpoole@ncdot.gov or otherwise contact the Bike/Ped division to provide feedback to NCDOT.
Kaiser says
I think you’ve got to simplify your language in this alert! If you want people to understand the issue, the players and the potential outcome you have got to speak in laymans terms. H232, “riding abreast” (are you referring to riding single paceline here or two abreast?).
The issues are not a problem to make us aware but what are you doing to advocate for us when it comes to things like: getting these roads a wide shoulder for us to ride in and making the municipality realize that car vs cyclist incidents are not the fault of either, it’s the fault of whoever designed our narrow, shoulderless, single lane roads.
Keith Johnson says
I would rather not ride on the shoulder. There is a lot of debris, loose gravel, and other obstacles.
Andreas Adrian says
Please do not change the laws to this. Riding two abreast makes it safer and quicker for other vehicles to pass. I’m a road user in every state in this country. I don’t see why North Carolina should be any different. Keep the consistent and safety will follow.
Johane Hirschfield says
New bike lines need to be implemented on heavily travelled roads to provide safety for cyclists and vehicles alike. When biking lanes are provided, they take cyclists out of the main roadway. Cycling is an economical and environmental commuting alternative. It is also a healthy living alternative. If the NCDOT can’t provide separate lanes on most roadways then there need to be laws and rules in place to allow cyclists to share the road with vehicles. There are many states that have implemented their own plans that allow compromise for both sides; both sides can find harmony in sharing the roads safely. Both modes of transportation are viable when there is compromise and education.
Johane Hirschfield says
If bike lanes are not provided then roads need to be maintained and cleaned regularly especially on the right side of the white line going in both directions. When that area is strewn with rocks, gravel, car parts, papers, wood blocks, trees and branches, glass (I can go on), it is hazardous and deadly to a cyclist. Tires are punctures, cyclists veer into vehicle lanes to avoid debris and are hit, cars are forced to move abruptly, vehicle tires are punctured and cause crashes (sometimes fatally to both driver and cyclist). It’s not that difficult to implement laws to assist the cyclist ad motor vehicle driver. I am both and so are many others. Why can’t laws be implemented to keep everyone safe? It shouldn’t be this difficult.
Toby Thorpe says
Mr. Poole:
As an avid cyclist, I am very disappointed to see the recommendations in the draft report. The committee made its recommendations based on sound reasoning with input from cyclists, yet many of these recommendations seem to be ignored or defied. Please heed the recommendations made by the committee as they are made in the best interests of cyclists and motorists.
steven says
Note that Brian Poole (bwpoole@ncdot.gov) is the messenger here and not the author of the things we find objectionable in the report. Please be respectful to Brian and give him substantive feedback that can be forwarded to the report author(s). Also, note that posting comments on our (BikeWalk NC) site, while appreciated, does not send feedback to NCDOT. Use bwpoole@ncdot.gov or otherwise contact the Bike/Ped division to provide feedback to NCDOT.
Basil Whitener says
Any statues that limit the right of the taxpayers of NC to utilize the roadways without regard as to their means of transportation should be avoided. Pedestrians, Cyclist and the operators of automobiles all have the right to use the roadways safely. I am a driver, walker and cyclist. When I am walking or cycling I frequently feel as if the drivers, distracted or not, are of the opinion that roadways are the sole property of automobiles and their operators.
While I may disagree with some of the positions of the working group and with their inability to come to a conclusion on others, their recommendations should be followed. The NCDOT should not insert their beliefs and opinions over those of the diverse and informed working group and it’s committees.
Cyclists and pedestrians support the construction and maintenance of the roadways in the state with their tax dollars as do the motor vehicle operators. All should be treated equally and have their rights to use the roadways safely protected.
Scott Weinberg says
I moved to Winston Salem this year from Minneapolis. Back there is a commitment to cyclists probably leading the nation. It’s quite spectacular to be a cyclist there, as well as all of MN. Note that in the coldest state in the USA, cyclist are active year round. Bike lanes everywhere. Bike trails everywhere. People staying active and fit. Bike commuters reducing traffic snarl and emissions.
The natural beauty of NC is startling. This is a state with the potential to be a cycling destination for cycling tourists. Think of the benefits of tens of thousands of out of state wallets and purses visiting NC for cycling vacations. Now think of biking restrictions going into effect. Word spreads fast.
Keep in mind the economic impact of affluent cyclists spending their holiday dollars in VA, GA, SC, etc. Anywhere but NC.
Charles Hailey says
I agree with a few of the posts that state that this Notice is fairly nonsensical. If you care enough to make the public aware (and it’s obvious you do, or no Notice would have been provided), please do so in a manner that clearly and easily provides pertinent information. That being said – and only based on the info provided in this notice – let me say that I am appalled that the NCDOT would not follow recommendations of the HR232 committee. It appears that the DOT has decided to lean heavily on the side of the automobile. This is a shame, as cycling (and pedestrians) is a viable, cleaner, less expensive, healthier alternative that should be promoted aggressively, not squelched in favor of automotive use. One can only assume that the oil lobby and our Duke Governor has some input here… for shame.
steven says
I hope the addendum to the post is helpful.
Jeff Mclean says
Well said. Thank you,
HustonSheppard says
As an avid rider here in North Carolina Rd. biking and also mountain biking and president of Gaston County Cyclists cycling club in Gastonia North Carolina I would not like to see these laws changed that interpretation of Said laws better interpretation would be better for understanding of by Cyclist and motorist alike . Two abreast riding is safer. what we basically need is wider Roche old is flying roach all repaved to give Cyclists a wider area to ride and motor is a 3 feet margin of safety one passing.
Rob Porcelli says
Feel working committee input should be followed, the NCDOT additional restrictions added to report concerning riding abreast in bike lane in particular and the registration of 30 plus riders is restrictive and not desirable, As Income tax payer, NC Citizen, Gas tax payer, Driver, Cyclist, and Pedestrian I feel that overall the working group consensus best serves my interests…..
Rob Slater says
“Car consciousness” prevails…still!
Ken Craven says
I feel as though the Addendum make sense to me as a cyclist. Most problems that occur between cyclists and automobile drivers also occur between other forms of road users. For instance, an auto driver must wait for a reasonable and safe opportunity to pass a cyclist or group of cyclists. The same occurs with slow moving farming vehicles, school buses, etc… In my hometown, an auto driver may wait up to 10 minutes to pass the local elementary school while buses disperse from the school, and parental autos wait in line to pick up children attending school. From my experiences, the wait times at the school far exceed the wait times auto drivers face while waiting to pass a group of cyclists.
I can continue with many other accounts, but I feel the main issue to this story is patients, or lack there of. We have become a society of instant gratification. Passing a cyclist on the road, sending a text message will driving, screaming at the microwave to hurry; we have become a society of now.
Until we value safety over the ability to gain a second of time in our lives, the laws and recommendations above are fruitless.
Chad says
I moved from Alabama to escape the idiotic oppressed government but y’all are doing a fine job of dragging this state back in the Stone Age. Please consider other form of transportation. How about be more progress and spend money on bike lanes, driver education, school programs…the kinda stuff other states are doing including Alabama.
Mark Vreeland says
Avid cyclist everywhere know the traffic laws, there is no enforcement when motorized vehicles cause countless incidents and deaths to cyclist. While riding for over 40 years I have been in countless incidents in the presents of police and with law enforcement as the perpetrator. NEVER ONCE was the perpetrator ticketed or made responsible. The existing laws on the books are sufficient and clear enough for Stevie Wonder to see the problem. Until cyclist are actually treated with respect on the roadways, any new laws or restrictions should be completely ignored as there is already no enforcement of the existing and clearly written laws.
Karin Lukas says
This bill forgets that our transportation system is here to transport PEOPLE and that an increasing amount of people in NC use the roads by bike, foot, wheelchair, skate board or other alternatives to the car. The car should not dominate the streetscape or the language in bills. The bill should make the “vulnerable” (language used in the bill) traffic participants (bikes, pedestrians) the primary focus and cars and motorcycles secondary.
Lori Kent says
Well if the economy keeps going the way it appears, we all may be biking one day. I feel cyclists keep drivers on their toes, which today is a GOOD THING. There are too many gadgets and distractions, and the amount of money spent in just motor vehicle to motor vehicle accidents is astonishing and expensive, as well as the lives lost. And that is not including the few cycling accidents.
Victor Powley says
Brian
Please make the committee aware of these items:
1) Restricting solo bicyclists to the right half of the lane interferes with defensive bicycling practices such as lane control, staying well out of the door zone of parked cars, improving visibility at junctions, and avoiding right-hook crashes. It encourages police and motorist harassment of safe cyclists and invites legal problems for cyclists via the state’s contributory negligence law.
(2) The riding abreast issue should be handled with education as the committee recommended, not with new restrictions that will likely be amended by the legislature to be far worse.
(3) Allowing each municipality to enact and enforce its own local regulations and permitting process for group rides creates a bureaucratic nightmare for ride organizers, whose rides can easily pass through several different municipalities and is insensitive to those who worked so hard to create a sensible and practical permitting process at the state level.
For the safety of both cyclists and drivers, I feel the above items will lead to safer roads for both cyclists and drivers.
b.hoy says
My family and I moved here to Henderson County and Transylvania County a few years ago mainly for the reason of the quality of the bicycle riding(mountain and road) and the other outdoor activities this beautiful area has to offer. I am a daily commuter to and from work apart from my normal training on the bike.
In my short time in this area I have seen only more and more people out riding their bikes and this area will continue to grow in that regard. I feel like we are ‘going backward’ in restricting what bicyclists can and cannot do. If there are more and more folks out on the roads and on the trails should we not be ‘moving forward’ in regards to safety for bicyclists? Please make our roads safer for the bicyclist. Please do not move backwards in regards to our safety. Keep us safe and give cyclists at least 3 feet.
Thank you
Bryan says
It has been proven that riding abreast is going to be less evasive to motorists and safer for cyclist. Riding single pace line with 50+ riders is not going to make anyone safe.
– Bryan Smith
cyclist & voting tax payer
Claremont, NC
robbielink says
I thought the wording in the section on “Visibility (clothing or other reflective gear) and lighting requirements” was confusing. It seems to require front lighting as equipment whether or not the bicycle is being used at night and it also seems to make rear lighting optional if reflective clothing is worn. I personally feel that rear lighting at night should be required.
I included this in my comments to Mr. Poole.
Also, upon actually reading the draft report I do not find the NCDOT recommendations as severe as this website implies. I think a lot of it depends on the actual wording of any legislation and that, unfortunately, is something independent of the recommendations. In other words, I don’t trust our politicians to get it right no matter what the recommendations say.
Chad quinlan says
Forcing riders to ride in only one half of a lane will make cycling more dangerous for riders and make drivers more aggressive with trying to force riders off the road. Being able to ride side by side or in the middle of the lane makes cycling safer for everyone and NC should not be one of few states to deviate from the current rules of the road
Steve Mullis says
By implementing this into law would be a mistake for the cycling community. Safety is always paramount on any rides that I take with the two clubs I choose to ride with. Restricting the way we ride would only endanger us as a group and as individuals.
Brian Glover says
The comment period closes at 5pm TODAY (Tuesday the 29th)! Please email bwpoole@ncdot.gov with “HS 232 Comments” in the subject line TODAY, and say that you oppose section 7 of the HS 232 draft report.
Here’s a sample email text:
Subject Line: HS 232 Comments: reject proposal #7
To the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the HS 232 Bicycle Safety Study Report. While most of its recommendations are very good, I urge you to reject proposal #7, “Operating Position on Roadway.” If enacted, this rule would prevent citizens from using the basic defensive driving techniques that are necessary to operate a bicycle in traffic safely, and which are taught by the League of American Bicyclists and every other national bicycle safety organization. The current law works well to ensure that all road users can operate in safety. Please do not change it.
Sincerely,
Patty with Slow Spokes says
Agreed. This is the point with the largest issues.
Lori Kent says
Based on the recommendations and reading the minutes, it is clear to me that both NCDOT representatives do like cyclists on the road at all. Shameful. Our tax dollars pay their salary. Lauren Blackburn, as NCDOT director of the division of bicycling and transportation makes shameful statements and does not appear to be an advocate of cycling. Just terrible! I would like confirmation from the cycling representative to what I have gathered reading the minutes.
steven says
The minutes are accurate. Lauren Blackburn did not challenge any of the anti-bicyclist statements and dangerous recommendations from the other NCDOT representative, or from any other committee member. At the time I thought she was trying to play an objective role as steward of the committee, but they had a professional moderator for that purpose. In hindsight I think that either there is a hidden power dynamic through the NCDOT org chart that deters her from speaking contrary to anything the State Traffic Engineer says. Another possibility is that she agrees with him. I wish I could say I knew.
Lori Kent says
I also want to add, and mind you I am trying to call Lauren Blackburn with the NCDOT as to why Fred Burt had so much say in this agenda? Who is he? Does he pay more in state taxes than the rest of us? Just because his pianist wife has to be inconvenienced in going to church on Sunday and he considers cyclists nuisances, just makes me realize the state listens to frustrated old men. Well quite frankly Sunday drivers late for church have almost run over me when I am walking on sidewalks, so if we want to discuss nuisances on the road, we can talk about old people and their driving too. We can talk about lazy people always late wherever they go and who feel they have a right to speed. We can talk about people who have no licenses or insurance but continue to drive. We can talk about the lack of law enforcement to give speeding violations like they should. So, I don’t know who Fred Burt is, or why he was given such a grand gesture by such an important task, but somebody needs their sense put in check.
Patty with Slow Spokes says
Hi Steve, Sorry for the late date comment.
I read through the draft and did not see any reference to point # (3) Allowing or encouraging each municipality to enact and enforce its own local regulations.
I agree with you on point number (1) In Sec 7 of the Draft Actions and Recommendations, the NCDOT Recommendation that cyclists, “ride on the right half of the right most travel lane.” At a minimum the wording provides no reference as to how a cyclist should or could make a Left Turn on the road.
I did not think the wording the NCDOT recommended in Section 2 was so objectionable in allowing a vehicle to safely pass a group of cydlists.
NCDOT Recommendation: that the legislature consider adopting language similar to the following:
Bicyclists shall not operate more than two abreast in a single marked travel lane on public
roadways except when overtaking another bicyclist. Bicyclists shall not move left, change
formation, or otherwise interfere with a vehicle performing a safe pass.
steven says
What makes good advice does not always make good law. While BikeWalk NC recommends no greater than two abreast as a best practice, experience shows that bicyclists do end up more than two abreast at various times under safe conditions, and police enforcement against this is problematic. For instance, which cyclist gets the ticket? Police say “all of them.” This means that a cyclist could be ticketed for what other cyclists around her do, and that’s not fair. Also, we are concerned that some members of the state legislature will take NCDOT’s “no more than two abreast” language in a bill and amend it at the last minute into one requiring cyclists to go single file whenever a car is present, and we will be unable to stop it.
Matthew Campbell says
NCDOT should stick to the recommendations of their H232 Committee and NOT pass forward recommendations making cycling on North Carolina’s road unsafe and dangerous. In a time with growing pollution, crumbling infrastructure, and an obese population, the last thing any state needs to be doing is restricting bicycling in any way. Instead, NCDOT should be looking to do everything they can to include cycling and make sure that it is safely integrated with automobile traffic throughout the entire state. Passing these regulations runs the risk of making North Carolina a pariah state amongst cyclists, who already value the state as a destination for great riding and fantastic scenery. Currently, Asheville, North Carolina is one of ONLY FIVE Platinum level cycling communities in the entire country as designated by The League of American Bicyclists, the nation’s oldest cycling advocacy group. Were these regulations to be passed, Asheville would instantly lose that status and the entire state of North Carolina would be relegated to the worst status as potentially one of the most discriminatory states in the country where cyclists are concerned.