(Revised April 18, 2012)
This page allows members of the NCUTCD Bicycle Technical Committee to view comments by interested persons who are not committee members. The URL of this page is private; please do not circulate it, or the URL of my list of proposals, or the proposals themselves — John Allen. A more detailed introduction also is online.
Proposals
Model Bicycle Law (work in progress)
The proposals are linked below. They are Microsoft Word documents using the standard NCUTCD template.
Chapter 1, Definitions
| Chapter 1, Definitions | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Section | Topic | Comment | |
| 1-109 | Bicycle – definition | Inclusiveness | |
| 1-186 | Roadway – definition | Clarify shoulder status | |
| 1-(new) | Electric bicycle – definition | New category | |
| 1-(new) | Shared-use path – definition | Defines use | |
| 1-(new) | Wheelchair – definition | Corrects omission | |
| Chapter 11, Rules of the Road | |||
| 11-202 | Bicycle – Idaho traffic signal law | Likely controversial… | |
| 11-301 | Driving on the right | Clarifies and improves language |
|
| 11-303 | Overtaking a vehicle on the left | Updated to reflect modern road conditions |
|
| 11-304 | When passing on the right is permitted | Clarifies that bicyclists may overtake on shoulder |
|
| 11-307 | No-passing zones | New rule for slow vehicles; Possibly controversial |
|
| 11-310 | Following too closely | Legalizes riding in slipstream | |
| 11-313 | Bicycle on shoulder of controlled-access highway |
Codifies when bicycles are permitted |
|
| 11-403 | Bicycle – Idaho stop sign law | Likely controversial… | |
| 11-505 | Pedestrians on shared-use paths | Keep to the right — the rule in most states. |
|
| 11-601 | Right turns | Clarifies merging when there is a bike lane |
|
| 11-606 | Bicycle – hand signals | Updated to conform to best practice for bicyclists |
|
| 11-1202 | Traffic laws apply to bicyclists; shoulder travel |
Clarifies status of bicyclists on shoulders |
|
| 11-1203 | Bicycle – passengers | Update for modern equipment types and safety |
|
| 11-1205 | Bicycle – position on roadway | Rewritten to clarify | |
| 11-1206 | Riding two abreast | Clarifies when it is permitted and that overtaking is allowed. |
|
| 11-1207 | Carrying articles | Allows switching hand positions. | |
| 11-1208 | Left turns | Clarifies merging | |
| 11-1209 | Bicycles on sidewalks | Adds restrictions needed for safe operation |
|
| 11-(new) | Nonresponsive traffic signals | Permits cautious crossing | |
| 11-(new) | Cell phones | Adopts restrictions already in state laws |
|
| 11-(new) | Texting | Addds restrictions already in state laws |
|
| Chapter 12, Equipment | |||
| 12-410 | Viewscreens | Updated to reflect new equipment types, permitted and prohibited uses |
|
| 12-415 | Earplugs | Revised to reflect reasonable uses and prohibitions. |
|
| 12-702 | Bicycle-headlight and taillight | Improves wording | |
| 12-703 | Bicycle-rear reflector | Allows brighter rear reflector | |
| 12-705 | Bicycle additional lights and reflectors |
Improves wording, defines acceptable colors |
|
John,
Great work. However I don’t understand 11-505. Shouldn’t ‘right’ be replaced with ‘left’. Why make pedestrians follow one set of rules in a roadway (11-506) and another on a shared use path. If a shared use path because too congested for cycling the cyclist can dismount. At which point they become a pedestrian and walk with their bicycle (on the left).
The reason to have pedestrians walk on the left in the roadway is clear: the speed (while walking) of a pedestrian is not an important factor, so go with vision. Move the pedestrian away from the vehicles coming from the rear that are difficult to see and near the vehicles coming from the front that are easy to see.
To ask pedestrians to walk on the right in a crosswalk but on the left in a roadway seems to put an undue burden on the pedestrian that know one would think of putting on a motor vehicle. It would be bizarre to ask drivers to drive on the right on highways but on the left side on freeways.
If walking to the left is correct for a roadway, it is correct for a shared use path, and if it is correct for that why have 2 rules when you have have one. Alway walk to the left if safe.
Allen Morris
That pedestrians walk on the right on shared-use paths is the rule in every state but Rhode Island, and mainly, as far as I can determine, because the speed differential is much lower — and also, there are many different ypes of users on shared-use paths — ranging from pedestrians and people in wheelchairs to people pushing baby strollers, walking dogs etc.. To have one category of them traveling in the opposite direction would result in delay and confusion.
In “1-(new) Electric bicycle – definition” the definition uses the outdated “two wheels in tandem” type wording instead of the new wording used in the Bicycle definition that covers all human powered devices. It is common for tricycles to also have the e-motors.
John,
Great work. I do have a comment on 12-702 Headlight and taillight required at night. The statement, “a headlight on the front emitting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and 300 feet to the sides” leaves me asking the question from where the 300 feet to the sides is to be measured. Does this mean that a headlight must be visible 300 feet to the sides immediately perpendicular to the lens? All bicycle and motor vehicle lights of which I am aware, have a field of view where the light emits from the point source and angles out away from it.
Stated another way, is the intent that the light be visible at 300 feet to the sides at X feet to the front of the bicycle, or is it that the light be visible at 300 feet to the sides at zero feet to the front of the bicycle (i.e., the field of view from the light starts with a line perpendicular to the bicycle at the front of the bicycle extending 300 feet to each side and continuing for at least 500 feet to the front end, thereby creating a rectangular cube instead of a cone)?
Being a standards engineer (though unrelated standard), I don’t know how to interpret the quoted text.
I look at page 18 of http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-R&T-2012-TRAF-002.pdf put out by the European Cycling Federation and see the beam pattern and I can’t imagine any light today that throws light 300 feet to the sides immediately perpendicular to the front of the bicycle.
On a related but different topic, I see no law regarding not blinding other traffic with the headlamp. Much of the EU has such a law and one would be good here in the states. I’m not sure it should be as stringent as those in Germany, but perhaps similar to the requirements for automobile low beams so as to night shine in the eyes of the driver of an oncoming vehicle.
Requirements for bicycle lights are generally stated loosely in terms of sight distance in the USA, for the simplest interpretataion by police and the courts. Engineering standards for bicycle lights are established by the ISO (International Standards Organization) and are generally observed in the manufacture of lights sold in countries where those standards hold. They do not hold in the USA for two related reasons: We do not have a national traffic law: traffic law is established by the states, and the Federal Government has not established a design standard for bicycle lights. This results in a market as wide open to improvements as to dysfunction: sale of inadequate, nonstandard lights, excellent lights which surpass the ISO requirements, and lights which have problems of excessive brightness in the wrong directions. See http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=1968 for additional comments.