BikeWalkNC

North Carolina’s advocate for safe cycling and walking

Search Results for: where should i ride

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

The Working Group brought together by NCDOT pursuant to House Bill 232 to study bicycle safety laws held their final meeting November 18th. After approving last meeting’s minutes, 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 (there was consensus that two abreast is often safer than single file), 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.

Here are some points made during the discussion.

  • UNC HSRC (James Gallagher) 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 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. 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 motorist
    • James said based on above points, riding two abreast is “probably” safer and 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. These included recommended legislation

  • Allowing crossing of double-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.

Historical Basis of Road Rights for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Advocates for motoring sometimes call for elimination of bicyclists or pedestrians from roadways, or for increased regulatory burdens to be placed on bicyclists (ostensibly to equal the expense of motoring regulations). Their argument often begins with the motoring-centric assumption that roads are for cars, and that because motoring on roadways is regulated as a privilege, then any use of roadways is also a privilege, and not a true right.  Historically and legally speaking, however, this claim is inaccurate. Recognition of an individual’s basic right to travel on shared roads dates back thousands of years.

Roads evolved from unimproved footpaths and trails over five thousand years ago. Some roads were constructed and maintained by private landowners, and others by governments. The earliest challenges to public travel over these routes came from landowners or other local inhabitants who might extort money from travelers or block travel by force or physical obstruction. Public use of roads was compelling for access to water, food, and trade, for transport of goods and materials, and for military purposes. Across the world, laws evolved to define the rights and responsibilities of travelers and landowners.

Some of the first written descriptions of travel rights are found in second century BC Roman property laws that established a hierarchy of easements that prioritized pedestrian access over wagon passage. The Romans were prolific road builders, creating a network of durable paved highways that spanned most of Europe including England. While of strategic military importance to the Roman government, these roads were public ways permitted to all. Any act to block or hinder travel upon public roads was prohibited by Roman law.  Within the city of Rome, traffic congestion became such a nuisance that Julius Caesar banned wheeled traffic in the city during most of the daytime.

The tradition of public passage, however, survived even in the dark ages. In the twelfth century, the seminal English law text Tractatus of Glanvil written for Henry II declared the legal status of the king’s highway and the public right to travel upon it.

The concept of right of way originated in English law at this time with a dual meaning: First, the right of the king to establish public roads across private properties, and second, the public’s right of passage on such ways. The common-law right to travel on public ways followed the colonists to North America.

In the late 1800s controversy erupted over a new type of vehicle that was speeding along rural roads and urban streets, occasionally frightening horses and pedestrians: the bicycle. Considered a nuisance by some non-bicyclists, cities and states enacted numerous bans on bicycle travel (for instance, Kentucky banned bicycles from most major roads). Numerous court cases involving bicyclists’ road rights resulted in inconsistent outcomes. In cases involving collisions, English and American courts eventually concluded that the rules of the road for carriages should apply equally to bicyclists. These rules prohibited speeding or otherwise operating in a manner dangerous to others.

Eventually the higher courts in the states would reach conclusions protecting the right to travel by bicycle on public roads. In Swift vs City of Topeka (1890) the Kansas Supreme Court stated:

“Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle . . . . This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen.”

In the case of the self-propelled automobile, however, the Kansas Supreme Court spoke too soon. In the 1890s, automobile travel was primarily a novelty for the wealthy, but motor traffic volumes and speeds grew quickly on public roads over the next thirty years. With popularization of motoring came a staggering epidemic of crash fatalities and injuries for pedestrians and vehicle operators. In response, cities across the country enacted new regulations on motoring ranging from licensing requirements to outright bans. Automobile organizations challenged the regulations in court based on right-to-travel grounds, and won many of the early cases. But as motoring’s death toll continued to increase each year, and government regulators made a stronger case that improper motoring violated the travel rights of others, the courts relented. By 1920, no court found the right to travel to be sufficient grounds to strike down a driver license requirement for motor vehicle use. For instance, in the federal case Hendrick v. Maryland 235 US 610 (1915):

“The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the ways themselves . . . In the absence of national legislation covering the subject a State may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles — those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers . . . This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the States and essential to the preservation of the health, safety and comfort of their citizens.”

Drivers who were charged with driving a motor vehicle without a license would continue to attempt a defense based on the right to travel, but to no avail. For instance, in State v. Davis (Missouri 1988):

“The state of Missouri, by making the licensing requirements in question, is not prohibiting Davis from expressing or practicing his religious beliefs or from traveling throughout this land. If he wishes, he may walk, ride a bicycle or horse…. He cannot, however, operate a motor vehicle on the public highways without … a valid operator’s license.”

The State v. Davis decision calls out the importance of walking and bicycling in supporting the right to travel. If driving a motor vehicle is an issued and revocable privilege, then it stands to reason that some other modes must remain in order to preserve the right to travel. Otherwise, only the privileged could continue to travel independently on the essential trips that people have been making for thousands of years.

Bicycle registration programs are often proposed and sometimes implemented to combat bicycle theft and to raise revenue. Most government-operated bicycle registration programs in the US fail due to high implementation costs, low participation and revenue, complications for bicyclists traveling between jurisdictions, and increased friction between police and low-income populations. Today, Hawaii is the only US state with a mandatory bicycle registration requirement, which succeeds primarily because it is implemented as an excise tax on new bikes at the point of sale, and also because out-of-state bicyclists cannot ride across the state’s border.

As a note, property taxes have historically been the revenue method for paying for roadways.  The high costs of the construction and maintenance of roads due to motoring, compared to traditional human and animal powered means, led to the institution of a fuel tax.  Although the first gas tax was instituted around 1932, dedication to highways and the Highway Trust Fund wasn’t in place until 1956.  According to a 2015 report done by the US PIRG, the fuel tax today covers less than half the costs of maintaining and expanding roadways. The resulting shortfall is made up from other sources of tax revenue at the state and local levels, and is generated by drivers and non-drivers alike. Most communities elect to promote the public benefits of bicycling and walking rather than deter these activities by applying a usage tax.

Many US residents do not drive motor vehicles due to limitations of age, health, or economics, or simply by choice. Worldwide, motorists are a clear minority; people outnumber motor vehicles 7 to 1. In much of the world, the bicycle is the most popular vehicle choice for travel, essential for the mobility of people with modest incomes or in areas with a scarcity of space that can be dedicated for motoring (or even for parking).  Promotion of motoring at the expense of bicycling and walking would repurpose our roads from public rights of way open to all users into specialized facilities reserved for the privileged.

The only roads legally prohibited to bicyclists and pedestrians in North Carolina are fully controlled access highways, aka freeways. Prohibition from such highways is acceptable only because the full control of access prohibits driveway access between the highways and the adjacent land; the adjacent properties are accessible by other roads that are not fully controlled access and therefore open to bicyclists. The prohibition from fully controlled access highways does not prevent pedestrians and bicyclists from reaching their destinations, but may sometimes require longer routes.

According to the Complete Streets policy adopted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation in July 2009, “[t]he North Carolina Department of Transportation, in its role as steward over the transportation infrastructure, is committed to providing an efficient multi-modal transportation network in North Carolina such that the access, mobility, and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities are safely accommodated.” The NCDOT Roadway Design Manual says “It is the responsibility of the Section Engineers and Project Engineers to be assured that all plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E’s) for federal-aid projects conform to the design criteria in the “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” (2011).” That document, also known as the AASHTO Green Book, states: “The bicycle should also be considered a design vehicle where bicycle use is allowed.” It should be clear that bicyclists are intended users of all roadways in North Carolina except fully controlled access highways (freeways), and that it is our government’s job to facilitate this travel, not deter it.

Full article with references and endnotes

Winter 2019 Newsletter

Happy 2019! Changes at NCDOT, priorities for BWNC this year, the AV Start Act, and more. Read on. 

ON THE MOVE
The Newsletter of BikeWalk NC
From the Executive Director
Victory in the fight for funds to make North Carolina a state where anyone can choose to bicycle, run, walk and use all forms of active transportation to improve our health, environment and economy requires correcting bad decisions of the past. It also requires bold new public policies that will improve our transportation networks for all. Policy makers across the state make many decisions that impact the lives of rural and urban residents and visitors. Their leadership and our work are vital to creating an environment that fairly and equitably accommodates all forms of active and multimodal transportation.

In 2019, BikeWalk North Carolina (BWNC) will work with partners, groups, and with you, our members, on the following priorities:

Reducing the Loss of Life: BWNC will work to activate as many North Carolina cities and the state to declare that Vision Zero is a defining goal for how we educate, design and build our roadways. We will speak up at NCDOT’s Vision Zero committee meetings for prioritizing safety of our roadways over all else.

Codifying Complete Streets Policy: BWNC will continue our work with policy makers to require NCDOT to develop a clear, comprehensive and standardized approach for implementing its Complete Streets Policy, and we will work to get the necessary funding and design of a safe and equitable multimodal transportation network.

Eliminating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Limitation: BWNC will work to remove the 2013 session law that states NCDOT shall not provide financial support for independent bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects, except for federal funds administered by the Department for that purpose.Thank you to all our members and donors for your generosity and participation in 2018. We hope that you will continue your support, reach out to local groups and your employers to join or match your generous contributions.As we move forward in 2019, new developments will shape our work together. NCDOT recently announced that it is merging its Bicycle and Pedestrian Division with its Public Transportation Division. At this time, it is unclear how this historically significant merge will affect multi modal transportation planning and funding. This change reinforces our critical work at BWNC as North Carolina’s only statewide advocacy group for safe cycling and walking.
For more information, contact Terry Lansdell, Director@bikewalknc.org

AV Start Act Stalls
As the discussion continues about Autonomous Vehicles, we wanted to update our readers on the status of the AV Start Act.The AV Start Act, a US Senate bill to establish preliminary federal regulations for autonomous vehicles, died without a vote when the 2017-2018 legislative session ended. The bill received pushback from consumer and bike/ped advocacy groups who cited a lack of standards-based safety requirements and a dependence on self-regulations by Level 3-5 AV manufacturers as the technology first enters the market. (AVs are currently broken into 5 levels, with levels 3–5 being the most automated). Passage was thwarted by other senate issues taking precedence, but sponsor, Senator John Thune [R-SD], has promised to re-introduce the bill during the next session.Like its companion bill that passed the House in 2017, the AV Start Act preempts state regulation of AV equipment in favor of federal-level regulation, but would delay implementation of federal equipment standards and mandatory testing protocols for three to five years as federal regulators study and report on the issues. The act would require AV manufacturers to provide the government with self-evaluation reports on how their products accomplish multiple safety objectives, such as sensing of pedestrians and bicyclists, and to provide relevant crash data. During this period, manufacture and public operation of level 3-5 AVs lacking traditional safety devices such as brake pedals would be allowed.Numerous bike/pedestrian and safety advocacy groups such as the League of American Bicyclists have expressed alarm at the lack of federal regulation of AV sensor and control systems, particularly in the wake of the fatal Uber AV collision with a pedestrian in Arizona in March 2018. AV manufacturers contend that waiting for the government to develop comprehensive system testing, standards, and regulations before allowing public deployment would delay the purportedly safer-than-human-driver technology and put US manufacturers at a disadvantage with their overseas competitors.The AV Start Act does preserve common law liability for AV manufacturers and protects both common law and statutory liability from preemption in future legislation. This ensures that pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-occupants have the right to trial by jury if harmed by the new technology— a powerful incentive for manufacturers to make their products safe. However, the Act does not address forced arbitration clausesthat are frequently included in user contracts for users of ride and rental services. Consumer groups fear that such arbitration clauses could deny vehicle occupants the right to sue individually or as part of a class action.For more information: AV Start Act, Self-driving bill hits dead end in U.S. Senate, Autonomous Driving and Collision Avoidance Technology Implications for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Mark Your Calendars for these BWNC events in 2019

2019 CARS RideThe Capital Area Ride for Safety (CARS) ride was first held in Raleigh in 2016 to  promote, educate, raise awareness and encourage positive interaction between motorists and bicyclists. September 22, 2019, will be the fourth year of the event, which continues to grow each year. Please put Sunday, September 22nd on your calendar for the 2019 ride. This is a well-organized ride with several options for riders including road rides, greenway rides, and even virtual rides. Best of all, it benefits BikeWalk NC and our work on behalf of you! For photos from last year or more information on the ride, go to CARSride.org.

2019 NC BikeWalk SummitBikeWalk NC loved seeing so many of you at this year’s statewide Summit. If you couldn’t attend the Summit this year, or if you did and found it worthwhile, please mark your calendars to join us for the 2019 NC BikeWalk Summit being held October 18–19 in Winston-Salem. If you are a bicycle / pedestrian advocate in the Winston-Salem area who would like to help us plan the Summit and showcase your town, please send a note to our Executive Director, Terry Lansdell, at director@bikewalknc.org.

Happenings Around the StateThere are some exciting things happening around our state. A few of them are highlighted below.
Durham, NC, as reported in our last newsletter, received a $1 million Bloomberg Mayors Challenge grant to support their work to reduce demand for single-occupancy vehicle trips into downtown Durham. This funding is in addition to the $100,000 award that created the Durham Mayors Challenge Pilot Program. During the 2018 Pilot, the City of Durham worked with approximately 1500 downtown employees to understand and encourage alternative commuting. This project tested two strategies, the personalized planning tool and the bus lottery game, both of which resulted in measurable change in how people reported traveling. The future program will continue and improve these strategies, as well as test other ways to encourage our community to drive alone less. The program will focus work in the downtown Durham area with the goal of building a program that can adopted by any community in the United States.
Apex, NC has completed its bike plan, which includes a connection to the 22 mile American Tobacco Trail.
Chapel Hill, NC was named a Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists. They join their neighboring community of Carrboro as the only two communities to reach this level to date.Is your community doing something we and others should know about? Send us a link so we can promote it!
Second E-Bike Raffle Winner Announced
Joe Michel from E-Bike Central (R) presenting Seth LaJeunesse with his new E-Bike. Seth takes his new bike for a spin in the parking lot.The second BWNC raffle was held on January 9, and we are pleased to announce Seth LaJeunesse as the winner of the BH Easy Motion Evo Eco e-bike that was donated by E-bike Central. Seth is Research Associate at UNC HSRC & Associate Director at the National Center for Safe Routes to School. Congratulations, Seth! We look forward to hearing about your experience with this new mode of transport!
BikeWalk NC is your statewide advocate for better infrastructure, better policies, and safer walking and bicycling experiences in our state. 

You can help by becoming a member for only $30/year.
Won’t you join today, and make our voice even stronger?
Contact us!
Terry Lansdelldirector@bikewalknc.org
P.O. Box 531, Cary, N.C. 27512We’re Social!
Copyright © 2018 BikeWalk NC. All rights reserved.Contact email: contact@bikewalknc.orgYou are receiving this message because you opted in at BikeWalk NC. 
Unsubscribe

Change Lanes to Pass- A Lesson in Safety

Consensus building around a better paradigm for bicycling safety

by Steven Goodridge


A driver pulling a wide trailer nearly sideswipes a bicyclist in Petaluma, California

The Problem

Unsafe close passing, especially at high speeds, is one of the most common safety concerns expressed by bicyclists who use our state’s roadways. Beyond just frightening bicyclists, unsafe close passing contributes to a large share of car-overtaking-bicycle collisions. Although darkness, impaired driving and distracted driving are factors in many overtaking-type collisions, a growing body of evidence including video recordings and personal injury investigations shows that attempted same-lane passing of bicyclists may be the most common overtaking-collision failure mode, particularly in daylight.

Same-lane passing of bicyclists is a flawed concept of operations. Most marked travel lanes are too narrow to allow a motor vehicle to pass a bicyclist within in the same lane at safe distance. On rural roads, travel lanes are typically about ten feet wide. A Ford F-150-based pickup or SUV will almost certainly strike a bicyclist if attempting to pass entirely within a ten-foot lane, as shown below.

Wider, twelve-foot lanes found on some newer roads provide more maneuvering space for large trucks and buses, but don’t allow such vehicles to pass bicyclists within the same lane.

Safe Passing

The space occupied by a bicyclist fluctuates as the bicyclist maintains balance. This operating space is at least four feet wide, and preferably five feet wide, according to the AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

Safety advocates recommend a bare minimum of three feet of separation between a bicyclist and an overtaking motor vehicle (more distance is required as speeds increase).  For a motorist to pass at least three feet away from the bicyclist’s dynamic operating space, on most roads the driver must move across the left lane line and well into the adjacent lane.

Movement into the adjacent lane requires that a motorist yield to any vehicles already using that lane, which often requires slowing, looking, and waiting until conditions are appropriate. It is important that this thought process begin early, so the motorist has time to decelerate to the bicyclist’s speed if need be. A driver whose concept of operations is a same-lane pass will often approach the bicyclist at high speed until the lack of space becomes apparent at close distance, which is often too late.

Changing motorists’ default concept of operations from “same-lane” to “next-lane” passing is essential to improving bicyclist safety on the roads we have. Whether the motorist must move three feet, five feet, or completely into the next lane for a safe pass, the motorist must be prepared to look and wait for traffic in the next lane to clear, and this mental process needs to start as soon as they see the bicyclist.

Messaging

Public messaging can influence public behavior, but to be effective it must be targeted, clear, and actionable. Past efforts by state and local DOTs to improve motorist-overtaking behavior through slogans and signage have had mixed results.

The most visible messaging to date is the “Share the Road” slogan and signage. “Share the Road” has been widely criticized by bicycling safety advocates as poorly targeted, ambiguous, and unactionable. It allows two completely opposite interpretations, same-lane and next-lane passing, as lampooned by cartoonist Bikeyface:

“Three Feet to Pass” and other “N-feet” messaging, signage, and laws seek to quantify a safer distance for passing of bicyclists, contrasted to the minimum two-foot legal requirement for passing closed vehicles. While public understanding of safe distance is important, “N-feet” messaging does not address the flawed concept of same-lane passing that contributes to high-speed overtaking crashes. For instance, California’s 3-feet law provides an exception that allows for closer passing in narrow lanes, and police in California have buzz-passed bicyclists and harassed them for not riding far enough to the right to facilitate a safe same-lane pass despite inadequate lane width to do so.

Many knowledgeable bicyclists leverage the defensive practice of lane control – riding near the center of the travel lane, and/or riding two abreast – to deter unsafe same-lane passing in narrow lanes. The general effectiveness of this practice has garnered it support by many in the traffic engineering profession and has resulted in new traffic control devices that encourage and support it. The ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook provides guidance to install shared lane markings, aka “sharrows,” in the center of the usable width of a travel lane when that shared width is too narrow to facilitate safe same-lane passing. Lane-centered sharrow markings can be found on many roads that are popular with bicyclists but feature narrow lanes.

 

The “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign is another common treatment used to convey the legitimacy of lane control by bicyclists on narrow-laned roads. A study of message effectiveness conducted by George Hess and M. Nils Peterson found that both motorists and bicyclists understood the meaning of “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign better than shared lane markings and “Share the Road” signage in terms of where bicyclists may operate within marked travel lanes.

The “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign has not been without controversy. Some in the traffic engineering profession have objected to use of the sign, for reasoning varying from misunderstandings of the state’s slower-vehicles stay-right law (which treats marked travel lanes and unmarked roadways differently) to concerns that, as a white regulatory sign, it incorrectly implies a legal prohibition against using any part of the bicyclist’s lane when overtaking (motorcyclists are the only users in North Carolina who enjoy statutory protection against any side-by-side use of their lane by another motorist). Advocates with BikeWalk NC are confident that these misunderstandings and concerns will eventually be put to rest. However, the “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign and discussion are tangential to the key actionable message that needs to be delivered to the motoring public: how and when to overtake safely.

Change Lanes to Pass

A clearer message to describe best practice for passing bicyclists on ordinary roads is “Change Lanes to Pass.” Performing this safely involves three simple steps:

  1. Slow Down. Don’t run into the bicyclist from behind while preparing to take action.
  2. Look and Wait until Safe. Other traffic is likely to be using the adjacent lane. Wait until it is clear.
  3. Change Lanes to Pass. Move across the lane line to ensure there is adequate separation from the bicyclist.

A yellow “CHANGE LANES TO PASS” warning plaque could accompany the standard bicycle warning sign (MUTCD W11-1) for roadside use. Most existing “SHARE THE ROAD” plaques are installed on roads with narrow lanes and could be directly replaced with a “CHANGE LANES TO PASS” plaque; however, sight distance may be a consideration when determining where to locate such signs.

Solid Centerlines

A significant obstacle to public promotion of lane-change passing has been the prevalence of solid centerlines on most of the narrow rural roads used by bicyclists. Many police officers and other public officials have considered these markings to be inviolable, but in practice most motorists do cross solid centerlines to pass in-lane bicyclists when the clear sight distance is sufficient for safety. Engineering policies for marking dashed centerlines assume that the vehicle being passed is moving at near the maximum posted speed limit; this requires a much longer clear sight distance than when passing a slow moving bicyclist.  Because many locations that allow safe next-lane passing of bicyclists are marked with solid centerlines, North Carolina recently joined many other states in modifying the passing law to allow passing of bicyclists in such locations when all other legal conditions for safe passing are met.

NC General Statute subsections § 20-150 (a) through (d) define limitations on when passing is permitted based on clear sight distance, oncoming traffic, and other safety factors. Subsection (e) restricts passing in designated no-passing zones. In 2016 subsection (e) was modified to allow passing a bicyclist if all of the other safety conditions are met and the driver provides at least four feet of clearance or completely enters the next lane. This legal change brought the passing law into alignment with the routine behavior of prudent motorists, and opened the way for police and other public officials and motorists to begin a substantive dialog about recommended practices for passing bicyclists on narrow two-lane roads.

Recent Messaging

Since the 2016 change in the passing law, NCDOT has begun incorporating “change lanes” into numerous bicyclist safety messages, including an update to the Driver Handbook and materials produced by the Watch for Me NC and Vision Zero programs.

BikeWalk NC advocates that this progress continue with actions including the following:

  • Phase out “SHARE THE ROAD” plaques in favor of “CHANGE LANES TO PASS” plaques
  • Educate law enforcement about changes to the passing law and recommended technique for passing bicyclists
  • Produce motorist education/PSAs on safe passing practices
  • Update driver education curriculum
  • Change-lanes-to-pass law

When public understanding and support for safer passing of bicyclists has grown sufficiently, it may become politically possible to pass legislation in North Carolina to require it.  A few states including Delaware, Kentucky and Nevada require motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists under some circumstances, such as when there is more than one lane serving the direction of travel. A change-lanes law makes it easier to identify unlawful passing maneuvers, and any overtaking collision with a bicyclist in the same lane becomes prima facie evidence of a violation by the motorist. However, there is a danger that without sufficient public understanding and support, pushing for new legal restrictions on motoring behavior near bicyclists could result in the attachment of new restrictions on where and how bicyclists may ride – for instance, prohibiting effective defensive practices such as lane control. For this reason, advocates with BikeWalk NC believe that a comprehensive safe passing education campaign should be pursued before further legislation on passing in our state.

Although roadway engineering modifications such as well-designed and maintained bike lanes and wide paved shoulders can often eliminate the need for motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists, many or even most roads where unsafe close passing occurs are unlikely to see modifications due to the expense. Most are two-lane roads where the state or municipality does not own wide enough right-of-way to add to the pavement width. “Change lanes to pass” is a necessary part of any long-term strategy to support safe and pleasant bicycling on our road system.

Rules of the Road for Electric Scooters

What are the traffic rules for electric scooters such as the Bird? What should they be? These questions are being asked by a wide range of stakeholders following the sudden influx of scooter-share activity in urban areas. Electric scooter rental offers the instant ability to travel at 15 mph between downtown destinations without physical exertion (or sweating), and without the up-front cost of purchasing the vehicle. Although they may resemble a child’s kick-scooter, electric scooter-share vehicles are not toys; nor are they to be confused with disability-assistance devices that move at walking speed. Adults ride electric scooter-share vehicles to travel the “last mile” of an urban journey much faster than they can on foot.

Under existing NC law, electric scooters like the Bird fall under the definition of “moped,” which includes heavier vehicles that can travel up to 30 mph. Moped riders must be at least 16 years old and must wear a helmet meeting the FMVSS 218 (motorcycle) standard. Mopeds require rear-view mirrors and must be registered with the DMV. Some electric scooter-share proponents argue that that moped regulations are excessive and unnecessary for lower-speed scooters. In California, Bird has lobbied for legislation that would legalize operation of scooters on sidewalks – a subject of vigorous debate between pedestrian and scooter advocates. As some lawmakers in North Carolina reconsider the state’s existing regulations for scooters, we encourage examination of applicable traffic safety science and history.

Testing reveals that at 15 mph, the Bird scooter has an emergency stopping distance of 30 feet (human reaction distance of 16 feet + braking distance of 14 feet). The Bird can be lifted and turned in place when stationary, but at 15 mph its minimum turning radius is well over 30 feet. The kinematic and dynamic maneuvering characteristics of electric scooter-share vehicles are similar to those of bicycles. The subject of electric scooter safety, therefore, has much to benefit from lessons learned about bicycling.

Adult bicycling safety education programs instruct bicyclists how to operate bicycles on roadways according to the basic collision-prevention rules for drivers of vehicles (which apply to bicyclists in every US state) and discourage bicycling on sidewalks. Sidewalk bicycling is associated with much higher fall and collision rates compared to roadway bicycling, especially in urban areas with a high density of driveways, intersections, street furniture, and pedestrians. Particularly hazardous is bicycling opposite the normal direction of vehicle traffic. One of the most common car-bike crash types in North Carolina’s cities is contra-flow sidewalk bicyclists being hit by right-turning motorists who are looking left for vehicles. Although it is possible to reduce some of the risks of sidewalk bicycling by traveling near walking speed, bicycle users are motivated to travel faster. Electric scooter operators, who don’t exert themselves, may be even more speed-motivated than sidewalk bicyclists. We therefore intuit that recommended best practices for electric scooter operation should resemble those for adult bicycling by encouraging roadway use according to the basic rules for drivers.

Some electric scooter operators report feeling unsafe or unwelcome on certain roadways, electing to use sidewalks instead. Many bicyclists empathize. From a public policy perspective, however, we posit that if interactions between lower-speed and higher-speed traffic on an ordinary road are deemed unreasonably unsafe, unpleasant, or inconvenient, the prudent remedy is to change the roadway environment in ways that reduce conflicts and/or speeds, and not to push users of lower-speed vehicles onto the sidewalks. Paved public roadways have carried a mixture of wheeled traffic types for thousands of years and their adaptation will continue for many more.

Exemption from some existing moped regulations may be warranted for lower-speed electric scooters. A CPSC (bicycle) standard helmet is likely adequate for lower-speed electric scooter falls. Rear-view mirrors are easily broken on such small vehicles, and many riders can either turn their heads effectively or prefer helmet or glasses-mounted mirrors. The low property value and limited public danger of low-speed electric scooters may not warrant the bureaucratic overhead of mandatory state registration. There is growing sentiment that regulating electric scooters more like electric-assisted bicycles would be in the best public interest. And yet, the popularity of electric-assisted bicycles is also a relatively new development, and the implications of mixing them with pedestrians on multi-use paths under existing regulations are not yet fully understood.

Democratization of our streets is essential to serving the independence and mobility of a population with diverse needs; public roadways are too valuable to allow them to be monopolized by any vehicle type. As the private and public costs of automobile use continue to rise, innovations that reduce barriers to access and facilitate travel by lower-cost, lower-energy modes are a net benefit to the public. Electric scooters are just the latest in a long history of low-speed vehicles on our roadways. Regulatory proposals for scooters and any other vehicle should be evaluated based on available evidence, cost/benefit analysis, and a commitment to making our streets safer and more welcoming to everyone.