Here’s a video showing a bicycle ride on a constant mile-long upslope, at speeds of 10 to 12 miles per hour (16 to 20 km/h), on a suburban 4-lane speedway with narrow lanes and no shoulders, the most challenging street in the community where I live. Motor taffic was very light, and auite fast. Points made:
- Lane control is not about riding fast: it is about controlling one’s space.
- Lane control is necessary so motorists will overtake at a safe lateral distance on a street with a narrow right-hand lane.
- By requiring motorists to make full lane change, lane control lets a cyclist with a rear-view mirror confirm well in advance that motorists will overtake with a safe lateral distance.
- With the light traffic on a multi-lane street, a slow bicyclist does not cause any significant delay to motorists.
- Most motorists are cooperative.
- A few motorists are abusive — even though they can easily overtake in the next lane — but they too overtake safely.
- American traffic law supports lane control.
From my perspective the truly surprising part of this demonstration is the frequency of rude or complaining motorists. On a run of that length, I would have been plenty surprised to see only one rude or complaining driver!
Expect more of this. Massachsetts motorists used to be pleasantly surprised with bicyclists who were merely predictable. Now with the advent of bike lanes, more motorists expect that we should stay in our special place, even when there isn’t one, or if there isn’t one, then it must be the sidewalk or at least the gutter.
John, your demonstration is clearly the safest way to operate a bicycle under the circumstances shown, but the ruling in the Eli Damon case (which involved lane control under similar circumstances) seems to put motorist convenience as the higher priority:
“…contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, there is nothing in M.G.L. c. 89, §
2, or any other statutory or regulatory provision which indicates that the obligation of bicyclists to “give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle” does not apply on multi-lane roadways. Moreover, as discussed, 720 C.M.R. § 9.06(a) prohibits bicyclists from “obstruct[ing] unnecessarily the normal movement of traffic upon any highway.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s contention that he may “hold” the right-hand lane as long as there is a passing lane to his left, even when there is heavy traffic in both lanes and even when it would be safe for him to pull to the right to allow overtaking traffic to pass cannot be correct. It is simply an unreasonable interpretation of the law in terms of its plain language, purpose, and practical implications.” – Eli Damon v. Town of Hadley Police Department.
The ruling is incorrect on that point, though. The law does specify an exception. Article 25 § 1122 begins with an important phrase, which the court omitted from its quotation: “Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle…” Note that a cyclist is permitted to overtake and pass other vehicles on the right in any lane of sufficient width for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to safely share: “…[bicyclists] shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way…” – Chapter 85, § 11B.
If the cyclist takes the lane for safety reasons other than substandard width– such as better protection from a right hook or drive-out– this would seem to trigger the exception whereby the overtaken cyclist does not have to “give way to the right”. If not, then why?
The courts can’t get it right any more than police; they want us hugging the curb no matter what the law says. That doesn’t stop me from taking the lane anyway, albeit with the caveat that it may lead to an encounter in traffic court.
Ryan. While I disagree with the judge on this point, I also don’t accept your argument for why it’s wrong. The statutory language is sloppy, and technically could be interpreted as you did. However, this interpretation is clearly not the authors’ intent, and it doesn’t make much practical sense.