What the 3' law says and doesn't say

I've notice a lot of poor summaries of our new 3' law so I will make an attempt to clarify. But I will note that it really irks me that our ride right law mostly gets summarized as one line with none of the exceptions mentioned but our 3' law has to mention all the exceptions, this bias fails to inform motorist where we are legally allowed to ride and seems to overly imply that motorists do not have to take due care when they encounter a cyclist on the roadway.

The law as written:
§ 21-1209. Throwing object at bicycle, motor scooter, or EPAMD.
(a) Drivers to exercise due care.- Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall:
.(1) Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter being ridden by a person; and
.(2) When overtaking a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter, pass safely at a distance of not less than 3 feet, unless, at the time:
..(i) The bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider fails to operate the vehicle in conformance with § 21-1205(a) of this subtitle ("Riding to right side of roadway") or § 21-1205.1(b) of this subtitle ("Roadway with bike lane or shoulder paved to smooth surface");
..(ii) A passing clearance of less than 3 feet is caused solely by the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider failing to maintain a steady course; or
..(iii) The highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least 3 feet.
(b) Throwing objects.- A person may not throw any object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter.
(c) Opening doors with intent to strike, injure, etc.- A person may not open the door of any motor vehicle with intent to strike, injure, or interfere with any person riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter.
(d) Yielding right-of-way.- Unless otherwise specified in this title, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a person who is lawfully riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter in a designated bike lane or shoulder if the driver of the vehicle is about to enter or cross the designated bike lane or shoulder.

****************************************************************************************
Now lets break down the new bits
(2) When overtaking a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter, pass safely at a distance of not less than 3 feet, unless, at the time:

Poor summary: When overtaking a bicyclist, motorists must pass at a distance of three feet, with important exceptions:

Better summary: Motorists must pass safely at a distance of not less than three feet when overtaking a cyclist unless:

Discussion: It's not exactly 3' for passing and passing safely is important too.

****************************************************************************************
(i) The bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider fails to operate the vehicle in conformance with § 21-1205(a) of this subtitle ("Riding to right side of roadway") or § 21-1205.1(b) of this subtitle ("Roadway with bike lane or shoulder paved to smooth surface");

Poor summary: If the bicyclist fails to ride to the right,
Poor summary: If the bicyclist is in a Bike Lane, [note that the "fails to operate in conformance with" clause is mistakenly dropped.]

Better summary: If the cyclists is riding in an unlawful manner, [(alternate:) If the cyclist is riding against traffic,]

Discussion: § 21-1205(a) is ride to the right with exceptions that include making a left turn, hazards and a lane too narrow to share, so basically they want to give a lawful cyclist protection and exclude cyclists riding against traffic. § 21-1205.1(b) is the mandatory bike lane law with exceptions such as hazards and not paved to a smooth surface (frequent complaint of the Roland Ave bike lane.) (full text of these laws at the end of this article.) This was meant to be a continuation of a lawful cyclist but poor summaries has has introduced a problem, do you or do you not give 3' to a cyclist in a bike lane or shoulder? The correct answer is you give '3 feet to any lawfully riding cyclists, period. I will assert that a driver may not be aware of conditions that would make the cyclist ride further left so they still must pass with at least 3' unless they are darn sure no exceptions apply or better yet just tell motorists that 3' passing does not apply to a clear cut case of wrong way riding and let the police sort out the details in other cases.

****************************************************************************************
(ii) A passing clearance of less than 3 feet is caused solely by the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider failing to maintain a steady course; or

Poor summary: If the bicyclist doesn't keep a steady course,

Better summary: Clearance of less than 3 feet is caused solely by the bicyclist,

Discussion: Clearly a motorist should not be held responsible for violating 3' if it is caused by the cyclist but to imply it's fine to pass an erratic cyclist with less then 3' is over the top on what's called for. (I find it interesting that they did not choose the primary clause but the secondary clause here.)

****************************************************************************************
(iii) The highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least 3 feet.

Poor summary: If the roadway is not wide enough for the motorist to pass legally at a distance of three feet.

Better summary: [nothing at all] [alternate: On one lane country roads (not two lanes,) the safe passing rules are different so the three foot rule is not applicable.]

Discussion: All this says is the driver cannot be charged with a 3' violation, it does not say the driver cannot be charged with reckless endangerment or failure to yield or other appropriate violation(s). In short this is NOT permission for a motorist to pass under these circumstances. This section does not say yea or nay about driver behavior only that a 3' violation is not applicable under these circumstances. Also note the poor summary changed highway (larger space) to roadway (less space) resulting in some improper interpretations in the vernacular.

****************************************************************************************
Summary: WABA has this to say "With this law, it becomes more important to “take the lane” whenever it is too narrow to safely share side-by-side, because otherwise you do not have the legal right to the 3-foot buffer." And I will agree to that under a legal view point but if this law continues to be summarized poorly only those riding far right will have this protection but if there is a mediocre width shoulder nobody has any good standing with this law as summarized poorly.

This is just sad as I would have hoped the new 3' law would give more protection to both the "take the lane" (when lawful) and those that choose to ride far right to be courteous to motorists but the law and poor summaries is making the new law very convoluted on where exactly a rider needs to be to get 3' protection. So I will assert that summaries must be closer to the legal view point by rewording then just dropping words from the law as written to make it shorter (but losing any resemblance to its true meaning in the process.)

Lastly if you find any poor summaries please report them here and we will try and get them fixed.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Md.'s new bicycling laws now in effect

By Kate Ryan, wtop.com

WASHINGTON - Rules of the road are changing in Maryland, and it's not just a texting ban or the fact that drivers have to go hands free on cell phones. There are some other new rules of the road that will affect drivers and bicyclists.

Peter Moe is the Maryland State Highway Administration's Bicycle Safety Coordinator. WTOP talked to Moe about Maryland's new rules of the road regarding cyclists. These are rules drivers need to be aware of and cyclists need to keep in mind as they travel the roadways.

One law welcomed by cyclists is the "three foot rule." Moe explains what that means for drivers.

"What you need to do now in the state of Maryland is give bicyclists at least three feet of space when overtaking them."

Another change repeals the law that basically forced cyclists to stick to the shoulder of roadways. Why shouldn't cyclists be required to stay on the shoulder?

"Because sometimes on that shoulder, there may be debris or obstacles that a cyclist has to avoid in order to travel safely," says Moe.

Moe says the repeal of the law means that cyclists now have some discretion. They can stay on the shoulder if they feel safest there, but can now "take the lane" on the road if they prefer.

Isn't that having it both ways?

Many drivers feel bikes should not be on state roads - like Route 355 or Route 202 - in the first place. Moe says the law is on the side of the cyclist.

"You can and should expect to see bicyclists on any roadway, apart from our interstates. Bikes are considered a legal vehicle, and they have a right to the roadway."

But Moe adds, cyclists have responsibilities that come along with those rights: they are required to obey all traffic laws. And yes, that means stopping at red lights and at stop signs.

"That's really for everyone's benefit. For the bicyclist and for the motorist."

Moe says it's the predictability, the understanding that you can expect the other guy to do the expected thing, that helps keep everyone safer.

The new laws took effect Friday.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Changes to Maryland Cycling Laws Effective Oct 1

From WABA

As October 1 approaches and the numerous bicycle-related laws passed by the 2010 Maryland General Assembly and signed into law by Governor O’Malley are set to take effect, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on those bike advocacy successes and, more importantly, to ensure that cyclists are aware of the changes.

1. Three Foot Passing

Maryland law now requires motorists to “pass safely at a distance of not less than three feet” when overtaking a cyclist unless: (a) the cyclist is not riding on the right or in the bike lane/shoulder as required by § 21-1205, or (b) the roadway is too narrow to allow three feet. Previously, it was widely assumed that the duty to pass safely meant three feet, but the new law clarifies that it does mean three feet in some situations and does not mean three feet in others.  With this law, it becomes more important to “take the lane” whenever it is too narrow to safely share side-by-side, because otherwise you do not have the legal right to the 3-foot buffer.

2. Requirement to Ride in the Shoulder Repealed

As of October 1, cyclists will no longer be required to ride in the shoulder where a smooth shoulder is provided and there is no bike lane.  However, Maryland remains one of only five states to require  that cyclists ride in the bike lane where provided.  Removal of the shoulder-riding requirement is a significant step forward, but further advocacy is needed on the requirement to ride in a provided bike lane.

3. Crosswalks “Rules of the Road”

The change in law also attempted to clarify some of the rights of cyclists in crosswalks–but many of those rights are still unclear.

  • In jurisdictions where the local government has legalized riding on sidewalks (most of Montgomery County other than Gaithersburg) the bill gives cyclists the right to ride in any crosswalk.  Moreover, at a signalized intersections, cyclists legally in the crosswalk now have the same right of way as pedestrians over cars with a green signal, or a car turning right on red.
  • The bill did not give cyclists the same rights of way as pedestrians in crosswalks without a signal.
  • In jurisdictions where riding on the sidewalk is illegal (most of Maryland including most of Prince Georges County), the bill did not provide for a right to ride in crosswalks.

4. Balanced Funding for Cycling & Walking

The law requires that the Maryland Department of Transportation ensure an appropriate balance of funding for retrofitting existing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians alongside funding for new highway construction, as well as requiring “increased emphasis” on “increas[ing] accessibility for the greatest number of pedestrians and bicycle riders” in transit-oriented areas.

5. Sidewalk and Bicycle Path Construction

This amendment to the existing law requiring the state to fund bicycle pathway construction or reconstruction as part of a project (if included in the project) requires the state to give higher funding priority to sidewalk or bicycle pathway construction projects where their absence is “a substantial public safety risk or significant impediment to pedestrian access.”

Together, these changes to Maryland law represent an elevation of cycling as a means of transportation in Maryland.  Credit is due to One Less Car, the Baltimore Bicycling Club, and the Maryland advocates and legislators who pushed these changes.  We look forward to seeing the improvements, both on the roadways and in the budgets, starting October 1.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

“Bike Bills” Update

by Nate Evans

Yesterday’s work session & vote on 3 of the bike bills went smoothly and with little debate.  Attending the Community Development Subcommittee meeting were Councilmembers Cole, Stokes, Kraft & bills sponsor Mary Pat Clarke.  Several members of Baltimore’s cycling community were present as well.

The 3 bills passed by the Community Development subcommitte include:

09-0175R Informational Hearing – Baltimore Police Department – Police and Cyclists
09-0430 Transit and Traffic – Bike Lanes
09-0431 City Streets – Bike-Safe Grates

09-0175R passed without debate with the official hearing being held sometime in October

09-0430 passed with one amendment citing not only the Manual for Uniform Traffic Contral Devices (MUTCD) for the creation of bike lanes, but also “other nationally recognized standards” which will include NACTO’s “Urban Bikeway Design Guide”.  There was limited debate on the amount of the fine set at $75, (an increase over the proposed $50 fine) whereas a Blocking and Obstructing Traffic fine carries $250.  While the cycling community does support a higher fine, the non-cycling community does not.  Also, Councilman Cole stated that police would more likely write a $75 ticket over a $250 ticket. 

09-0431 also passed without debate.

These bills will be presented to City Council on Monday, September 20th, 5 pm at City Hall.

For more coverage on these bills, visit Baltimore Brew

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Stealing a bike = $300 | Killing a cyclists = $287.50

[B' Spokes: It's really cool that they took this bicycle theft seriously (just wish it was the norm) but I really have to question why negligent driving fines are considerable lower: Negligent driving resulting in serious injury = $140 <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20100206071517726">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20100206071517726</a>; Negligent driving resulting in death =$287.50 <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20091203212215600">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20091203212215600</a>; ]
**************************************************

Bike Thief Guilty

OCEAN CITY – A Delaware man arrested in May for swiping a bicycle in West Ocean City because he was “tired of walking” pleaded guilty last week in District Court to theft under $100 and was placed on probation and fined.

Around 1:20 p.m. on May 27, the Maryland State Police received a call about a stolen bicycle. The victim told police she saw an identified man take the bicycle from her property on Old Bridge Rd. in West Ocean City without her permission. The victim provided police with a description of the suspect and the stolen bicycle, which was broadcast to local law enforcement agencies.

About 15 minutes later, a Maryland Natural Resources Police (NRP) officer reported he had located the possible suspect and the stolen bicycle at St. Louis Ave. and North Division Street in Ocean City. The officer identified the suspect as Ethan Cord Truitt, 18, of Georgetown, Del.

Meanwhile, the MSP officer who handled the original complaint heard from a witness who said he saw the suspect take the bicycle from the victim’s residence and start riding it down Old Bridge Rd. while carrying a skateboard. The witness told police he called for the suspect to stop, but the suspect dropped the skateboard and continued down Old Bridge Rd. on the stolen bicycle.

Shortly after 2 p.m., the MSP trooper transported the victim and the witness to the area in Ocean City where Truitt was being detained and they positively identified the suspect as the individual who had stolen the bicycle. According to police reports, Truitt apologized to the victim and told her he stole the bike “because he was tired of walking.”

The stolen bicycle was returned to its rightful owner and Truitt was arrested and charged with theft under $100. Last week, Truitt pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for one year and fined $300.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Hmm, illegal wire taping good for police investigations

...
Investigators also plan to use images taken from police videos, area surveillance cameras and television reports. It could take months to identify more suspects.
...
Vernon told the Los Angeles Times that cell phones and video have &quot;in essence deputized the public&quot; in fighting crime.

Using a YouTube video showing people setting fire to the taxi cab, the Fire Department arson squad asked for public help in finding the culprits. Investigators say they've gotten several solid tips.
...
******************************************************************************
[B' Spokes: I guess if this happened in Maryland we would jail the people making the videos and let the people setting fire to the taxi cab off.]

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

When The Law Doesn't Say What The Court Thinks It Should Say...

Imagine you’re driving your car on a road with multiple lanes. You’re in the right lane, and for some reason, the lane to the left of you backs up, and traffic stops. No problem, your lane is still open, so you continue driving, passing all of the cars stopped in the lane to your left.

Then you see the lights in your rearview mirror—you’re pulled over by a law enforcement officer, who issues you a citation for passing on the right. Later, in traffic court, you explain to the Judge that traffic in the lane to your left was stopped, while your lane was open, and that is why you were passing on the right. Despite your defense, the Judge decides that you were in violation of the law, and tells you that you should have either merged into the left lane, or stopped in your lane and waited for traffic in the left lane to begin moving again.

An absurd interpretation of the law? Absolutely. The decision is not only contrary to what the law actually says, it also leads to a result so absurd that any Judge should realize that it is obviously not the law.

Now imagine that you’re on a bike [and something similar happens].

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

In Spite of Law, Maryland Officials Still Arresting, Charging People for Recording Cops

[B' Spokes: Since many have helmet cams, I thought I would pass this bit along:]
...
Now we have another video of an arrest during the Preakness Stakes in which a Baltimore police officer can be heard telling the camera-holder, “Do me a favor and turn that off. It’s illegal to record anybody’s voice or anything else in the state of Maryland.”

That simply isn’t true, and it’s outrageous that Maryland law enforcement keeps perpetuating this myth. Perhaps that officer was merely misinformed. But Maryland police spokesmen and prosecutors are giving the impression that the state’s wiretapping law is ambiguous about recording on-duty police officers. It really isn’t. They’ve just chosen to interpret it that way, logic and common sense be damned.

Maryland is an all-parties-consent state, which means you have to get permission from all parties to a conversation before you can record it. But unlike Illinois and Massachusetts, Maryland’s law does include a privacy provision. That is, if the non-consenting party does

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Questions About Effectiveness of Maryland Vehicular Manslaughter Laws

By BETH PARKER/myfoxdc

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - Earlier this week, a 52-year-old man was struck and killed by a driver on the sidewalk at an Oxon Hill shopping center. Witnesses said the driver was doing donuts in the parking lot before the accident.

Charges for reckless driving were dropped in order to avoid double jeopardy and clear the way for potential future charges of manslaughter.

However, for years, some people have said the Maryland vehicular manslaughter laws are not working.

15-year-old Connor Kohls once said what he liked most about life is simply being alive. On August 11, 2008, that was taken away when Connor was hit and killed by a van. Connor was Ed Kohls' only son.

“Anyone who's lost a child knows the feeling of responsibility and loss and pain and constant wondering. Can we change time or find a time machine? None of that will happen for us,” said Kohls.

But he said what might happen is that if the law is tougher, other drivers might be more careful.

Connor was playing near the end of his family's driveway at their rural Maryland road. The driver admitted to reckless driving and speeding.

“We expected him to go to jail. Like every parent thinks - you kill somebody going double the speed limit - you go to jail. Well, it does not work that way in Maryland. What happens is you get points like you do for running a stop sign,” said Kohls.

The driver got four tickets and paid a fine.

“He just paid his fines and went away,” said Kohl. “It'll never go away for us. We're destroyed.”

In each of the last four years, state lawmaker Luiz Simmons has introduced a bill designed to make it easier for Maryland prosecutors to convict drivers of manslaughter.

“Maryland's standard for prosecution is impossibly high. It's one of the highest standards in the country,” said Simmons.

Maryland law requires proof of gross negligence - indifference to human life. Many drivers who cause deadly accidents end up with reckless driving charges.

“We need to make these laws stricter so that it's treated somewhat like a loaded gun. You have to be responsible with a loaded gun. You have to be responsible with a car when you drive it,” said Kohls.

Kohls said it will not help his family. But it might save another Maryland citizen from the pain he carries with him every day.

That bill to change the law did not make it out of committee for a vote. The judiciary committee is chaired by Prince George's Democrat Joe Vallario. We called and e-mailed him for a comment Friday but no one has called FOX 5 back.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Two Citations-Identical Circumstances-Opposite Verdicts

From Florida Bicycle Law

Recently, a cyclist was cited for violation of the “keep right” provisions of FS 316.2065-Bicycle Regulations. It was upheld in traffic court.

It was similar to another citation about a year ago in another jurisdiction. Both cases were nearly identical in the circumstances and the evidence presented by the bicyclists to the court.

The cases are notable because one cyclist was found guilty and the other the case was dismissed. There were some differences in the situations.

Both cyclists were advised to write to the department, retain counsel, and file a motion to dismiss before the court date. The cyclist who was found guilty chose to proceed without counsel.

The other retained counsel and filed a motion to dismiss, which was decided in his favor before the court date.

I believe that the time and proper setting of a pre-trial motion will enable full exploration of the circumstances, facilitating a better decision. The environment in traffic court is not conducive to thorough examination of the laws and circumstances of a case.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)