BikeWalkNC

North Carolina’s advocate for safe cycling and walking

Advocacy

Alert: NCDOT Releases Draft H232 Report

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.

HB232 Bicycle Safety Law Study – Working Group Discusses Safety Benefits of Riding Two Abreast – No Legislation Recommended to Limit This Existing Right

doublfilephoto

 

The Working Group brought together by NCDOT pursuant to House Bill 232 to study bicycle safety laws held their final meeting November 18th. The group focused on the legislative directive to look at whether cyclists should be required to ride single file or allowed to ride two or more abreast. The committee unanimously approved a motion to recommend no new regulations on riding abreast and instead for NCDOT to develop an education and outreach program (with funding) to promote safe group riding practices, safe cycling, and safe motoring, including advice spelled out in the resolution drafted by NCDOT that the preferred method of passing bicyclists is a lane-change pass.

The consensus was that riding two abreast is often safer than single file.  Here are some points made during the discussion.

  • James Gallagher (UNC Highway Safety Research Center) and enforcement representative Chris Knox both scoured general statutes and reached out to experts and did not find anything that prohibits riding two or more abreast.
  • Absent law against, cyclists riding two or more abreast is legal.  Steve Goodridge (BWNC) pointed out that a few municipalities in NC have traffic laws that may conflict with state law as they place restrictions on riding abreast or require riding single file.
  • James Gallagher also searched research and found none that suggested riding single file is safer.
  • Each person on the committee was asked to share their view for the record on riding two abreast. No one thought it was safer or provided rationale to support requiring single file.  Virtually all shared thoughts that supported riding two abreast such as:
    • No recorded hits from behind when riding two abreast. Numerous single file riders have been hit from behind.
    • Riding two abreast makes the bicyclists more visible, appear “bigger”
    • Riding two abreast makes motorist pass in other lane, which is safer (most crashes are from same lane passing)
    • Riding two abreast tightens group and thus facilitates passing for motorists
    • Gallagher added that only 3 states restrict it (39 states specifically allow it)

The committee had previously taken action on some of the other legislative directives – here is a summary of actions taken from previous meetings.   Recommended legislation included:

  • Allowing crossing of solid yellow line to pass bicyclists when safe
  • Requiring rear lighting or reflective clothing

Thank you to our cycling supporters that attended the meeting; some came in from Charlotte.

NCDOT will now assemble the committee recommendations into a report document, and write its official legislative recommendations into that document. The draft report and recommendations will be made available for public comment and likely revisions before being provided to the legislature. BikeWalk NC and the cycling community will need to pay close attention to the report document, but even more important is what the legislature decides to do with it.

Bicycle Safety Laws Study – Last Meeting to be Held Nov 18th

DSCN1522

 

The last meeting of the House Bill 232 Bicycle Safety Laws Study working group will be held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015, from 10 am to 2 pm, at the NCDOT Transportation Building in the Emergency Information Center (EIC) Conference Room   – 1 South Wilmington Street in downtown Raleigh (same location as the last meeting). Here is a link in Google maps.

Important issues will be discussed during this meeting:

 (1) Whether bicyclists on a roadway should be required to ride single file or allowed to ride two or more abreast.

(2) Operating position in roadway

(3) Aggressive driving, harassment, and distracted driving laws

(4) Vulnerable road user protection

We would like to get a few advocates to this meeting.  We are also asking key advocates to reiterate the safety reasons for riding two abreast and that this flexibility should not be limited.  The room seats 60, so there should be room to attend to listen to the debate.  You will need to check in at the front security desk and receive a visitor’s badge (please bring a picture ID). Security will then direct you to the EIC, which is on the first floor of the Building.

Here are the October 6 Meeting Minutes that include resolutions/decisions made so far.

A final report with recommendations for improvements is due from NCDOT to the General Assembly by the end of the year (December 2015).

 

Assured Clear Distance Ahead and Vision Zero

rural-road

Too often, bicyclists are treated as scapegoats for the consequences of negligent motoring behaviors. This tactic was on clear display at the October 6 meeting of the HB232 Bicycle Safety Law Study Committee. A committee member who is antipathetic to bicyclists told a story of a motorist who was pulling a boat at high speed on a narrow rural road when he crested a hill and spotted a single bicyclist ahead traveling the same direction. The motorist reported that he could not slow in time, but instead swerved right and crashed into a ditch in order to avoid the bicyclist and oncoming traffic in the other lane. The motorist and the committee member blamed the damage to the driver’s property on the bicyclist.

The State Traffic Engineer expressed similar sentiment, saying that bicyclists should stay at the rightmost edge of such rural roads in order to allow high speed motorists enough space to pass them. He said that motorists have an expectation that other traffic will be moving at the speed limit, and that by traveling slower, bicyclists violate this expectation and create a danger. This was the basis of his opposition to allowing bicyclists to ride two abreast on rural roads with high posted speed limits, despite no evidence of rear-ending collisions actually happening to cyclists riding two abreast on North Carolina’s rural roads.

BikeWalk NC’s representative on the committee debated both committee members by describing safe vehicle operating practices, the visibility benefits of riding two abreast, and the practice of lane control to deter unsafe same lane passing. The State Traffic Engineer appeared unconvinced. Following the meeting, the state official asked BikeWalk NC a hypothetical question: “Suppose it’s a higher speed rural road, and it’s raining, so visibility is poor, and a motorist rear-ends a slower moving bicyclist. Are we going to say that the motorist was negligent in such a case?”

Answer: Yes.

Both the boat-trailering and rainy-condition scenarios are perfect examples of violation of the basic speed law. All drivers, regardless of their vehicle type, have a responsibility to drive no faster than is safe for conditions, including any braking performance limitations of their vehicle or weather conditions that reduce visibility distances. The relevant NC statute subsections are these:

§ 20-141. Speed restrictions.
(a) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway or in a public vehicular area at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.
…
(m) The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing limits shall not relieve the operator of a vehicle from the duty to decrease speed as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway, and to avoid injury to any person or property.

The North Carolina Driver’s Handbook provides guidance on this:

“The faster you are moving, the farther ahead you must be able to see to allow enough distance for stopping.” (p. 46)

“Never drive at a speed at which you cannot stop within the distance you can see on the road ahead” (p. 62)

This principle is also known as “assured clear distance ahead.”

“The Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA) is the distance ahead of a vehicle or craft which can be seen to be clear of hazards by the driver, within which they should be able to bring the vehicle to a halt. It is one of the most fundamental principles governing ordinary care and the duty of care and is frequently used to determine if a driver is in proper control and is a nearly universally implicit consideration in vehicular accident liability.”

Drivers who overdrive their sight distance and collide with slow or stopped traffic on the road ahead are typically cited for “failure to reduce speed.” Note that removing bicyclists from rural roads can’t prevent such crashes; drivers traveling at speeds unsafe for conditions inevitably crash into cars stopped in traffic or waiting to turn left, school buses, garbage trucks, mail carriers, pedestrians, police officers… any one of a multitude of legitimate road users, not to mention hazards such as fallen trees or animals. North Carolina needs to focus on the root cause of such crashes – unsafe speeds – if the state’s Vision Zero policy is to be taken seriously. From the North Carolina Strategic Highway Safety Plan:

“North Carolina is a Vision Zero State—even one fatality is too many on our roadways. This Plan articulates the way forward to achieve Vision Zero. The Plan’s vision, mission, and goals guide the development and implementation of strategies and actions to achieve Vision Zero.”

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan describes speed as an emphasis area:

“The North Carolina General Statutes (§20 – 141) refer to speeding as driving at a “speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing,” while the State crash report form (Form DMV-349) defines speeding as either exceeding “authorized speed limit” or exceeding “safe speed for conditions.” Not only do higher speeds leave less time for drivers to perceive and react to roadway conditions or situations, they also lead to more severe impacts when collisions do occur. Because excessive speed can exacerbate all other roadway safety issues in North Carolina, progress in addressing speeding has the potential to positively affect other areas, as well.

“It takes the involvement of many parties to create a culture that encourages and expects safe speeds. Such parties include law enforcement, roadway designers, driver educators, and drivers themselves.”

Developing a culture of safe speed will ultimately require our public officials to stop blaming innocent victims in crashes involving unsafe motoring behaviors, and instead place higher expectations on those who wish to exercise the privilege of motoring on our shared roads. BikeWalk NC hopes that our Department of Transportation officials will take these critical steps as they develop their recommendations for the HB232 Bicycle Safety Law Study.

Highlights of the October 6 HB232 Bike Law Committee Meeting

The HB232 Bicycle Safety and Traffic Law Committee that was established recently by NCDOT to report to the NC Legislature had its third meeting on October 6.

The committee composition includes law enforcement officials, a roadway safety researcher, city and county staff, a trucking industry representative, a bike shop owner, a bike event promoter, a BikeWalk NC board member, an NCDOT expert in bicycle transportation, and the State Traffic Engineer. The committee also includes a Wake County farmer who is vocal and very concerned about the safety and delay of motorists who must share the road with cyclists. One story he shared involved a motorist pulling a boat to Jordan Lake on a two-lane hilly road with a posted limit of 55 mph. Driving at the limit, the motorist drove his vehicle and boat into the ditch after coming over the crest of a hill and seeing a single cyclist riding on the right edge in front of him. There was oncoming traffic so the only safe place to drive was the ditch since he didn’t think he could stop in time to avoid the cyclist. Thankfully no one was injured; however, there was substantial damage to his vehicle. The gentleman concluded that cyclists must be prohibited from high-speed rural roads. He said he speaks for many North Carolinians who want cyclists off the rural roads.

The farmer who shared that story at the committee meeting seems to have an ally in our State Traffic Engineer, who articulated his belief that our state roads are meant for motorists who expect to be able to drive at the posted speed limit. The farmer reiterated that use of the roads is a privilege that can be revoked. He said that goes for all users; however, the only circumstance he cited was revoking a citizen’s right to ride a bicycle on a high-speed-limit, two-lane road.

An entirely different perspective was shared by committee member, and BWNC Board Member, Steve Goodridge. He stated due to the narrow width of the lanes on many rural roads, same-lane passing unreasonably endangers cyclists, and that prior to any movement into the oncoming lane, motorists must be prepared to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. In the case cited earlier about the driver pulling his vehicle and boat into a ditch, Steve asked about the circumstances behind the incident. He wanted to know why the motorist was driving at a speed faster than his available sight distance – in other words, if you’re cresting a hill and can’t see the other side you should slow down. It could have been a left-turning vehicle rather than a cyclist. Steve teaches cycling safety as a master instructor certified through the League of American Bicyclists and he calmly shared his expertise and an engineer’s eye for detail with the committee.

Another thorny issue the committee discussed, but did not conclude, is what to do about cycling two abreast on high-speed, two-lane roads. Again, the State Traffic Engineer suggested a single-file law is needed. The farmer added that at a minimum, the cyclists should pull over if too many motor vehicles are stacked up behind them. He offered that cyclists were arrogant. We’d like to invite him on our next group ride so he can see arrogance from another point of view.

Steve Goodridge educated the committee that cycling two abreast on narrow roads provides significantly higher degree of safety to the cyclist because it adds to our visibility compared with riding single-file. We all know that riding two abreast is more fun because we can talk to each other, but there are inherent safety benefits as well. Steve asked the committee to only pass along recommendations to the Legislature that are rooted in crash and safety statistics and sound engineering judgment. He pointed out that none of the committee members have found any record or documentation of actual collisions happening between bicyclists riding two abreast and same-direction motorists in North Carolina.

The majority of the committee members did not feel that the state should require bicyclists to ride single file. The NCDOT representatives, however, insisted that some type of legislative proposal was needed. The issue was tabled until the next meeting.

The committee voted officially in favor of three recommendations during the meeting:

  1. The committee voted in support of a recommended change to the no-passing zone law that would provide a defense for drivers who pass a bicyclist safely with good sight distance and no conflicts.
  2. The committee voted unanimously to direct NCDOT to examine the impacts of road closure special events (particularly races) on local residents and businesses in order to address reports of repeated and extended periods of road inaccessibility.
  3. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the legislature pass a resolution directing NCDOT to conduct education and outreach activities that would promote best practices for group rides.

The next HB232 Bicycle Safety and Traffic Law Committee meeting is scheduled for November 18 at the Transportation Building at 1 South Wilmington Street in downtown Raleigh (across from the Capitol). Anyone is welcome to attend, however, there is no time on the agenda for public comment.

Skip to content