BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

I would like to see 3301b quoted, then a one-paragraph common sense interpretation.

You could have serious editing for length, for clarity, and for correctness.

I would like to see a succinct paragraph that says what your purpose or thesis is. To clarify where and how bicycles are supposed to ride on state roads? Any street in the state? To argue for one interpretation of that law?

If there are several theses (and they are really distinct) you could number them.

The first sentence is a good example of the kind of problems you have. It starts out by saying what 3301b is NOT. I'm just guessing that 3301b is some kind of law and I have no idea what it is about.

It then has a clause which is ambiguous between two opposite meanings: Does the case law in other jurisdictions support the idea that 3301b is about "two lanes and one lane" or does it support that 3301b is NOT about that?

Aside from that ambiguity, it is still hard to figure out what you could be talking about.

You mention "other jurisdictions"? Is 3301b a state law? Municipal?

I would doubt that "most people" have an opinion either way on what 3301b is about. Your being "given to understand" is, IMO, an awkward, wordy contruction.

IMO, every paragraph has one or two sentences that could be critiqued as extensively as I have that first sentence.

Who is your target audience in this? The general reader? Lawyers? Traffic engeieers? Traffic enforcement officers? Bike riders? Bike advocates?

I suppose the target audience is me, Jake and Ian. At least at the moment. I haven't had time to give this the attention it deserves but at a quick skim it looks right.

@Mick: Thanks for the feedback. I'll digest it and try to type an accessible abstract. In the meantime, here's the text of the statute:

"[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.

Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..."

How it's currently interpreted:

"...(slow cyclists) shall drive in the right-hand lane (when there are two or more lanes going that direction), or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (when there's one lane)..."

@Lyle: Thanks. Whenever works. (Don't forget steven (I think it was), who wrote he loved a good legal argument. I think he's first or second year law student locally, like Ian.) Basically I'm tossing it out here for scrutiny for glaring defects in thought, argument, or fact, before really working it up in formal form. The brief will be ironically long.

At the risk of displaying my naivete, has there been some rash of people unduly persecuted for non-existent violations of 3301(b)?

Not to dissuade anyone from a good mind-numbing picking of legal nits, but I'm not sure it's a good use of our legal/public safety resources to actually set up a "narrowly defined test case" in order to gain fodder for an internet debate. Of course, if there have been a rash of cyclists inappropropropropriately cited for not adhering to the statute, that's a different story, and it may well be worth bringing to a head...I've simply never heard of ANYONE actually cited.

(Also, @fungi, if I'm misunderstanding you, and your intention is not to deliberately create a real-world situation wherein your interpretation is tested in court, I apologize and withdraw any objection.)

I'm a software developer, actually, not a lawyer. But both fields require getting picky details right.

Thanks for your work on this, fungicyclist!

Let me try to paraphrase some of your arguments a bit, and perhaps demonstrate where they could be a bit clearer through my misunderstanding.

It seems like your chief argument is that the second part of 3301(b) (slow vehicles must stay as close to the curb as practicable) was intended back in 1975 for slow-moving vehicles WIDER than a lane, not NARROW vehicles. How do we know this? There are arguments that it WAS intended for wide vehicles, and arguments that it WASN'T intended for narrow vehicles. Let's take the latter first.

A. We know the legislators back in 1975 didn't intend it for bikes because the bike-specific section 3505 is more restrictive.

B. We know the legislators didn't intend it for motorcycles because the motorcycle-specific 3523 says they can use the full lane (and likewise scooters and mopeds).

C. We know the legislators didn't intend it for horses or Amish buggies because (this part isn't clear to me -- you assert this is so, but I don't see where you argue it).

Therefore, since it's not intended for any of them, it must not be intended for any narrow vehicles. (This seems more like an assertion, not a conclusion, though. The connection between A,B,C above and the rest of your argument needs to be much clearer.)

You argue convincingly that slow oversize vehicles couldn't be operated without violating the first half of 3301(b) (which requires them to be in the right lane), so the second half is there to make them legal to drive. But how do we know it wasn't also intended to apply to some slow-moving narrow vehicles? (Not bikes or motorcycles, but maybe some other type we haven't thought of.)

Other issues:

You say "Furthermore, 3505(c) would be redundant unless it was included to specifically exclude the instruction following the "or", the "practicable" part." This is the "limitation on riding abreast". Please make clearer how it's redundant. Without it, for instance, what still prohibits fitting three cyclists in a wide right lane?

You write "Title 75 makes no allowance nor exception for crossing the center line in the case of a grossly wide yet legally permitted wide SMV." Maybe you could argue that 3301 permits this. "Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway...." If the vehicle doesn't fit in the right half of the roadway, then the roadway isn't of sufficient width, and 3301 doesn't apply. Just a thought.

You say "motorcycles are by definition "motorized pedalcycles" under PA Law". As I read the definitions in HB 1817, this is backwards. All motorized pedalcycles (mopeds) are considered motorcycles, but not vice versa.

It's "buggies" not "buggys".

Hope this is useful.

@reddan: Nope, you're not misunderstanding me. In fact I'm soon riding off to ask an acquaintance on the force to write me a ticket for violating 3505(c) and 3101(b). At $10 it's an "E" ticket ride. (Disneyland allusion.)

I don't think it too much of an exaggeration to claim the language of 3101(b) is at the very root of pedalcyclists being treated as second class travelers of the road. "Practicable" has meant in both criminal and civil courts "the bicyclist has the responsibility to get out of the way of the motorist", (regardless of whether that interpretation is valid or not). Removing the consideration of safety or practicability would allow equal standing for cyclists. (This is my relatively naive opinion from reading case law, statute, and comments from self styled bike lawyers over the admittedly brief period of a week or two.)

I don't know of anyone charged with violating 3505(c) or 3101(b) either. However, in the Selz case the Appellate Court, though reversing his conviction, said he should have been charged with and was guilty of violating Ohio's version of our 3101(b):

"In a 2-1 decision the Second Appellate District of Ohio overturned the trial verdict: "...the judgment of the trial court is Reversed, and the Defendant-Appellant is ordered Discharged." Attorney Magas called the decision "a slamdunk victory for Steven Selz!" While it is certainly a victory, if you read further, it is hardly a slamdunk. "We conclude that a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can. Although Selz may have been in violation of R.C. 4511.55(A), requiring a bicyclist to travel as far as practicable on the right side of the roadway, he was not charged with a violation of that statute." (Note: R.C. refers to Ohio Revised Code.) from: http://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm

So can you see how it lurks, and may present a problem?

To indulge in reckless hyperbole; changing the theory of the meaning of this tiny statute changes the legal rights and responsibilities of cyclists in almost every State in this Union.

@steven: Thanks for your feedback. I'll respond more completely when I return, but now need to ride out for decaf tea bags and to talk to an officer about a ticket.

Wanted to note 3505(e) relates to riding abreast, not 3505(c).

This thread makes my head hurt - but I just wanted to comment on the buggies angle. I used to live very near to buggie territory in central PA. IMO they do not have any special infrastructure per se, but rather just use the shoulder of the road as much as possible. On heavily traveled ‘tourist’ roads like PA340 the shoulder is wide enough for cars to pass smoothly, but on back roads I’ve witnessed a lot of car/buggie conflicts. And since most Amish don’t carry cell phones these conflicts are drastically under reported.

As a side note; I always found it strange that most PA Amish sects do not allow bicycles, but Ohio sects do. I wonder if it’s a carryover from Ohio’s glory days of cycling in the 1800’s.

"One consequence of this becoming accepted law is that should enough cyclists travel a road, the "normal flow of traffic" changes, and with enough pedalcyclists, it will be their flow, not the cars which dictates the norm."

And when that happens, some enterprising fellow will emerge to start DrivePgh! to advocate for car-only infrastructure. Like separated car-only lanes and whatnot.

Someday... someday...

Wanted to note 3505(e) relates to riding abreast, not 3505(c).

I think I got bit by renumbering. The Riding Abreast section is 3505(e) in the current law, but was 3505(c) in HR 1817.

Now I see you're not discussing the Riding Abreast section, but the current law's 3505(c), Slower than prevailing speeds, which doesn't correspond directly to anything in HR 1817. So please ignore my question about riding abreast.

But it's still not clear to me why you think 3505(c) (current law) is redundant under the "usual" interpretation of the law, but not redundant under the interpretation you propose.

3505(c) takes the rules from 3301(b) and adds "unless it is unsafe to do so" to them for bikes. There's no such explicit "out" in the first part of 3301(b), so it seems to me that means it's not redundant. The fact that this "out" isn't needed for the second part of 3301(b), since it already includes "practicable", doesn't enter into it. Whether or not the second part of 3301(b) applies to bikes, 3505(c) still usefully modifies the first part of 3301(b).

What 3505(c) adds is that a cyclist may leave the rightmost lane if to stay there would be unsafe, even if none of the conditions of 3301(b) apply. That's how it modifies the first part of 3301(b).

I think one can argue that it also modifies the second part of 3301(b), giving the cyclist clearer permission to stray from the curb than "practicable" does. He can now argue he took the lane for safety, instead of being forced to argue that it was impracticable to remain by the curb.

So I still don't see the redundancy, under either interpretation.

ALMKLM: I think they call them freeways.

@Marko82: Apologies for the headache. I should have an advisory label on this thread?

Stu wrote in the "new fixed bike lanes on beechwood" thread "Re: Amish buggies, near Intercourse PA, on Route 340, PennDOT has dedicated buggy infrastructure. [StreetView] This includes special soft asphalt to accommodate horses' needs."

For what it's worth?

A couple thoughts. First, contemplating the slow-moving farm vehicles that, though driving on the right edge, yet cross over the center line, hurts my head to think about, too.

Secondly, regarding the nationwide impact of this...

changing the theory of the meaning of this tiny statute changes the legal rights and responsibilities of cyclists in almost every State in this Union.

There is nothing so sweeping at stake. While the language of the Pennsylvania statute might parallel that of other states', they do not necessarily mean the same thing. Courts interpret similar language differently all the time. This is what happens in circuit splits and when state courts grant more expansive rights based on state law and constitutions than federal courts find based on the federal constitution and laws. One non-transportation policy example: the California constitution's protection of free speech grants broader rights than the parallel provisions in the federal constitution, including the right (not recognized everywhere else) to immunity from trespass lawsuits while distributing materials on the premises of privately-owned shopping malls. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). Ohio (or any other state) could look at the Pennsylvania rules and say "yeah, we'll go with that" or just as easily say, "nah, we think that language means something different."

Third, as I understand Title 75, Chapter 33 (the 3300 series of sections) govern generally, and cyclists are subject to those rules except as otherwise specified in Chapter 35. See 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3501(a) (West)). The specific dominates over the general, so if there is a provision in Chapter 35 that covers the situation, there is no need to contemplate what Chapter 33 might say.

Furthermore, Section 3501(a) specifically excludes "those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application." What does that mean? Sounds kind of vague, right? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court thought so, too, in a case called Commonwealth v. Noel, 857 A.2d 1283 (Pa. 2004), which struck down the parallel "by their nature" provision in Section 3103(a), relating to horses. (If you look up the opinion, make sure to read dissenting Justice Michael Eakin's tribute to Mr. Ed at the end.)

@ieverhart How do you think I reacted when the slow moving fourteen and half foot implement of animal husbandry crashed into my frontal lobes? It was a ugly head-on collision of "Eureka!" and "Where are those painkillers I've been saving?" Blood may have flowed from various orifices.

While I appreciate your tempering admonition I will point out I thought I amply qualified my writing you quoted with "To indulge in reckless hyperbole..." You left that bit out? I don't take this so seriously. I was simply trying to justify this as more then an exercise in trivial internet frivolity to reddan. I do not think it is an unimportant issue. That's all.

Not sure of your third point. 3505(c) says: "c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so." Seems we have to consider what Chapter 33 says and means?

Wilbur, your "Furthermore" is unconscionably vague; Carol will be cross. I'll look up the opinion if only to read Eakin's tribute.

Steven Steven:

3505(c) reads : "Slower than prevailing speeds.--A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of section 3301(b) (relating to driving on right side of roadway) unless it is unsafe to do so." rather then the version on PA DOT's site, which leaves out the bit in the parenthesis. That it is only applied to the first clause "relating to driving on right side of roadway" implies that is the clause intended to apply to pedalcycles traveling the roadway. This reinforces the notion that the second part is meant to apply to vehicles too wide to fit in a lane. If the second part was envisioned as applying to pedalcycles, why was "unsafe to do so" not applied to it as well? "Unsafe to do so" is not the same as "practicable", or they would have said "practicable"?

Ah, you also misunderstand what I referring to as redundant. I meant the entire provision 3505(c) would be redundant to 3301(b) and 3301(a)(2), (" When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the roadway, provided the driver yields the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway within such distance as to constitute a hazard."), for the "(relating to driving on right side of roadway)" bit unless it was included to specifically exclude application to the second option, "or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway…" It may be a stretch to say "unsafe to do so" is already covered by 3301(a)2? It was also a common sense argument. I mean, one travels the road unless it's "unsafe to do so", right? So why include a passage that says that unless there's another reason to do so?

A second thought I had in asserting redundancy was that 3501(a) confers vehicular status on pedalcycles, so obeying 3301(b) is already a duty and responsibility. Unless of course 3505(c) is in there to either highlight that the first part of 3301(b) is meant for pedalcycles, or to include the nebulous "unsafe to do so" or both? In the real world it's probably "none-of-the-above". "Unsafe to do so" was probably included as political bone thrown to those who still wanted pedalcycles constrained by the "far right rule", as 3505(c) slipped in when the "far right rule" was removed.

(Let's leave the definition and meaning of "unsafe to do so" aside? It doesn't say "unsafe (for the cyclist)...", and could mean unsafe for loquacious equines, of course, of course, or SUVs for all I know or care. It may be one of "…those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application"?)

And what is the beleaguered cyclist to do when it's "unsafe to do so"? Buy an SUV, or maybe a 14.5' wide steamroller and flatten SUV's, perhaps take up driving a tank?

Furthermore, I'm thinking the one line "furthermore" redundancy comment might be best swept to the gutter, as keeping it in drives confusion and it might be "unsafe to do so"?

Apropos of nothing.

Headache relief, perhaps?

Steven:

"You argue convincingly that slow oversize vehicles couldn't be operated without violating the first half of 3301(b) (which requires them to be in the right lane), so the second half is there to make them legal to drive. But how do we know it wasn't also intended to apply to some slow-moving narrow vehicles? (Not bikes or motorcycles, but maybe some other type we haven't thought of.)"

The rule is for ALL slow moving vehicles. If an SMV can squeeze between the lines, it should travel in the far right lane. If an SMV can't fit in the far right lane, it should travel "...as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..." The beauty and elegance of the rule is it doesn't care if the vehicles are narrow or wide. It is sufficient for an SMV which is less then 10' wide to travel in a 10' wide lane. It does not have to travel "...as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..." A 9' SMV can travel anywhere in the lane its operator chooses of course. An 11' wide SMV confronted with a 10' wide lane, however, must travel "...as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..." thus minimizing the amount it crosses over into the other lane of traffic, be it traffic going with or against its direction of transit. Of course if that 11' SMV is pedal powered, confronted with a 10' wide right lane, it would be ruled by the second condition, but then it wouldn't be a "narrow" SMV, would it?

Size is all that matters to 3505(c) and 3301(b). (Well, except that 3505(c) tosses in that vague and nebulous "...unless it is unsafe to do so" which could bollix the lot, if it meant anything?)

Fungicyclist, why have you put a link to the Sarah Underwood naked bike ride video above just days after "apologizing" for referring to me and another female board poster as non-speaking game show hostesses on another thread (RE STI shifters)?

Some of your posts and threads I find interesting and informative and I learn a lot by reading about new subjects on this board. The video link just seems unnecessary and hostile to the female readership. Perhaps you would be more comfortable participating in a male-only message board but this space is mixed and I for one hope it stays that way.

are there naked dudes on the ride too? if so i don't see an issue. if there are only boobs and no wieners then i agree.

if they had just done straight footage of the group ride and interviews with the riders it would have been one thing. but the intro segment definitely was about pumping up the "sexy naked lady" angle.

It is a playboy playmate hosting a show about the world naked bike ride. They do their best to objectify her, if you watch the video. I'm not sure how objectifying a bunch of guys makes it any less offensive? Maybe in a different context it would be appropriate, such as one of the multiple threads about the world naked bike ride. Why put it here?

So, I'm at work, and decided not to fire up said video.

Were the cyclists portrayed therein riding as far to the right as possible, as far to the right as practicable, or were they just kinda hanging out all over the lane?

I agree, cburch. There have been other naked bike ride videos posted on this message board that have not drawn complaints from me or others, so far as I know. I could be mistaken, but I think this post was intended as a provocative followup to the other thread. [edit - fixed typos]

Sorry to all for feeding the troll. It's kind of ruining the space for me.

@reddan, definitely NSFW.

Unless there are goats on that ride, I'm not watching.

@Lyle:

It's a goat, it's naked, it's on a tallbike. What more can you ask for?

(Shame it's not wearing a helmet, though. Setting a horrible example...)

Y'all have reviewed the proposed changed to the vehicle code with respect to the 4 foot passing legislation, yes?

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0170&pn=114

You mention how the DMV's version of the code includes the phrase "(relating to driving on right side of roadway)" when it refers to section 3301(b). But that doesn't mean the reference is only to the first part of 3301(b). It's merely providing the title of section 3301, to make the text easier to read. Many references from one section to another provide the title of the section. There's no reason to believe the use of the section title was intended to suggest that only part of the section was being referenced.

If the second part was envisioned as applying to pedalcycles, why was "unsafe to do so" not applied to it as well?

It was. 3505(c) adds an "unless unsafe" rule to both halves of 3301(b).

I meant the entire provision 3505(c) would be redundant to 3301(b) and 3301(a)(2),

It may be common sense that cyclists aren't required to behave unsafely, yet the law still makes a point of saying exactly which rules we're allowed to disregard for safety. 3301(b) doesn't explicitly allow cyclists to ignore it for safety reasons, and 3301(a)(2) only covers driving left of the center line, so neither makes 3505(c) redundant.

It may be a stretch to say "unsafe to do so" is already covered by 3301(a)2?

Yes, I think it's a stretch. 3301(a)2 only applies to driving to the left of the centerline, on the wrong side of the road, and says you can do so only if an obstruction makes it necessary. If you think "unless unsafe" is implied here, why isn't "unless unsafe" implied for every other rule? But we know it's not, because various rules explicitly say "unless unsafe" (3304(b) for instance). Neither 3301(b) nor 3301(a)2(2) have an "unless unsafe" out, so when 3505(c) adds one to 3301(b) for cyclists it's not redundant.

Unless of course 3505(c) is in there to either highlight that the first part of 3301(b) is meant for pedalcycles, or to include the nebulous "unsafe to do so" or both?

It seems pretty unambiguous to me. It says to follow 3301(b) unless it's unsafe to do so, and since 3505(a) already requires cyclists to follow 3301(b), it's there to add the "unless unsafe to do so" part.

"Unsafe to do so" was probably included as political bone thrown to those who still wanted pedalcycles constrained by the "far right rule", as 3505(c) slipped in when the "far right rule" was removed.

Maybe so, but I think we have to go by what the law says, unless there's a record that the legislature didn't really want us to pay attention to some section because they only added it to appease somebody.

And what is the beleaguered cyclist to do when it's "unsafe to do so"?

The law says he's not required to follow 3301(b) if it would be unsafe to do so. Therefore he's allowed to move away from the curb or to leave the right hand lane entirely in such cases. Seems clear enough.

I'm thinking the one line "furthermore" redundancy comment might be best swept to the gutter, as keeping it in drives confusion

Deleting it sounds sensible, unless you can make a better case that there's redundancy.

The rule is for ALL slow moving vehicles. If an SMV can squeeze between the lines, it should travel in the far right lane. If an SMV can't fit in the far right lane, it should travel...

My question was how do we KNOW that the second half of 3301(b) wasn't intended to apply to narrow vehicles? You're just restating your assertion that it doesn't, that the second half is only for wide vehicles and only the first half applies for the rest.

I agree that only the second half can apply to wide vehicles. I think you still need to argue that the second half doesn't ALSO apply to narrow vehicles. That seems to be an important part of your argument (as I understand it), but you don't actually provide any evidence or argument I can see that this is so.

@reddan that's making me horny.

@sloaps I like this!

Not only passing at no less than 4 feet, but at "a careful and prudent reduced speed." It also addresses turning in front of cyclists. IMHO it could help make a stronger impetus for cyclists to "take the lane" most especially at and through intersections.

@reddan that's making me horny.

I'll take "Things I didn't expect to hear today" for 1000, Alex.

oh what i can't make puns too? you guys are jerk(ed)s.

Jeez...don't take it so hircineally..

Okay, I'll put on my grumpy old man hat (it's never far from reach) and respond to the proposed changes. How, exactly, is the four foot passing law going to be enforced? We have laws on the books (speed limits) that can measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and yet city officers can't actually enforce those laws well (i.e. no radar guns). So how, exactly, will this provision be enforced? Do I need to add measuring sticks to my pedacycle so I know when someone is breaking this new law? Or will officers carry state of the art survey equipment to measure passing distances?

Yes, it's great that the legislature is trying to accommodate different road users, but I would much rather see city cops actively enforcing speed limits rather than trying to figure out if someone passed 3 or 4 feet from me.

The 4-foot passing legislation modifies 3301b and adds a 3301c to reinforce the interpretation that cyclists aren't relegated to the gutter and aren't required to pull off the road to allow motor vehicles to overtake.

@Hyla: Just great. Even the helmetless goat looks fatter when riding 'bent.

I think he looks comfortable.

Y'all have reviewed the proposed changed to the vehicle code with respect to the 4 foot passing legislation, yes?

I've read it. It seems fine.

I don't understand why they added a section 3301(c) that repeats the rules from 3301(b), when they could have just added the exclusions from 3301(c)(2) to the list of exclusions in 3301(b)(2), replacing 3301(b)(2)(ii). I think that would have the same meaning, but with less repetition.

I spoke with the Honorable Representative from York about his bill as I shared bjanaszek's skepticism. I still don't think the 4-foot bit makes any difference, but I was convinced that the modifications to the SMV section were beneficial in that they make Magas's arguments in Selz v Trotwood explicit - you aren't impeding if you're going as fast as you can. It won't make any difference wrt the way motorists behave, but it will protect cyclists from misguided police action.

I haven't had the time or, frankly, the inclination to fully analyze either Fungi's analysis or anyone else's. Nevertheless, I feel comfortable making these general observations:

1) If Fungi manages to get a police officer to write him a ticket, he should cycle down to the closest law library and look up the "rule of lenity" as it may help his cause.

2) Section 3301(b) as it is presently written could be clearer in its application to cyclists.

3) Hopefully the bill cited by Sloaps will become the law. I'm not the least bit concerned about cyclists getting tickets. I do think that the 4-foot law would be extremely beneficial to cyclists who are hit from behind or side-swiped (assuming they survive and the driver is located). As I read the proposed law, it would eliminate a lot of b.s. arguments that the cyclist was partially at fault for being in violation of 3301(b) or some other statute. You can Google "comparative negligence" if you want to see how being partially at fault generally affects your rights against the driver. This is also why the original issue raised by Fungi is meaningful, at least in my mind.

4) The fact that something is legal doesn't mean that it's always a good idea. For me, riding in the middle of the lane falls into this category. Having been rear-ended three times in a car while stopped in traffic, twice with enough force to kill me had I been on a bike, and having been buzzed by my share of cars, I stay out of the middle of the road unless I can keep up with traffic or have a good reason to be there, regardless of how section 3301(b) may be interpreted. I'd rather be alive and wrong than dead and right on that issue.

re: Portland's nekked bike ride and video posted.

It's a video from "Hulu". All the naughty bits are blurred out. I had no idea it was a Playboy thing, or if it is actually. Said it was from "The Show"? There are more naked guys in it then females. The reporter is female. It has no prurient angle at all.

It's the best reportage I've seen on an important bike activism event. The one posted on this board about NYC's naked bike ride was poorly shot and badly reported. There is nothing salacious nor provocative to this PG rated video.

It's about Portland's biking culture and a specific event, and contains the best footage I've seen of that event. There are tall bikes, there are well lighted bikes, there are people of every shape and size. Bike saddles are disinfected before riding, as I hope was done at the try-a-bike event.

I'll ride naked through the streets of Pgh before issuing an apology.

Fully expect I'm just feeding the troll, but what the heck.

I had no idea it was a Playboy thing, or if it is actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Jean_Underwood#Modeling

It has no prurient angle at all. Yea, except the strip tease, closeup boob shot, panties flying.

Bike saddles are disinfected before riding, as I hope was done at the try-a-bike event. We also disinfected the picnic tables and grass before people sat on them, just to be safe.

McCrea: Funny, you made the time and inclination to post this opinion, but now have neither the time nor inclination to even consider if you advanced bad advice?

"I am very confident that the first part of the sentence applies where there are two or more parallel lanes of traffic in the same directon, while the second half applies where there is one lane. Your interpretation is not one that I would feel comfortable arguing in a court of law. I base this opinion on my relevant experiences: 3 years of law school, a PA law license, 2 years clerking for a federal judge, and five years practicing mostly complex civil litigation at one of the city's largest law firms. I am sure that your reading comprehension is quite good, and I agree with some of your other points expressed here, but your interpretation of this statute is mistaken and I feel compelled to offer my own view, particularly where it bears upon other cyclists' safety and understanding of the law."

What? Now you don't have the time or inclination to care about "...cyclists' safety and understanding of the law"?

dwillen: Look, I want to discuss 3505(c) and 3301(b) and the proposed 4' passing law.

I posted the video of Portland's nekked bike ride with the caveat "Apropos of nothing. Headache relief, perhaps?" Private parts are totally blurred. You saw boobs? I watched the bikes and the scenery and many free spirited people.

Your wiki link suggests even women's study groups have no problem with her Playmate status, or maybe you didn't bother to read your own link? "On June 7, 2007, a group of Oregon State University women's studies students created a poster celebrating Underwood's selection as Playboy's 2007 Playmate of the Year..."

You want to discuss your lengthy analysis of the laws, but you yourself derailed your own thread when you posted the link and further defended your position when when someone took offense.

Objectification of women (or anybody) affects more than those directly participating.

Many women participate in their own objectification, so a group of women saying they're okay with it doesn't make it any less morally problematic any more so than women objectifying other women (like the reporter)

PeTA tries the same crap with their objectification of women by saying “PeTA is run by a woman, they consented and they think it’s liberating”

Back on the topic at hand, I'm with bjanaszek

I don't see this law having any meaningful effect on my life. Three feet, four feet, whatever. We’ve had people mown down with zero feet of passing and what’s being addressed about that?

Cops don’t enforce the traffic laws we have. Am I going to have to try and remember every person’s license plate that passes less than four feet of me and report to the police? I just don’t see this coming in handy except in rare instances. In those situations, like the one with the guy honking at the lady crossing the street and getting agro with a board member, there were already laws in place to deal with it.

If there isn't a culture of safe driving, laws (especially obscure bicyle laws) are meaningless. Somebody blazing through the street isn't going to say "Oh damn, there's a jerk on a bicycle coming up, I better pass with greater than four feet because I don't want to be in violation of 3301(b)!"

To be clear, nothing I've said amounts to bona fide legal advice. I've simply offered a bit of my personal view on what a law means to cyclists. I do care a great deal about cyclists' safety and understanding of the law. I post my thoughts when I have something relevant to say. I don't need to be heckled for it. If anyone has anything to say to me, please send a private message as I've offered all I care to on this issue.

Pierce, if you're struck and maimed, (and I truly hope that never happens to you - it sucks), and the person who did so goes unpunished because the Judge or pompous lawyer thinks they know the law means you should have been riding in the gutter on that one lane one direction road, then I think you'll care about the law? If you have to pay out of pocket for your medical bills because the insurance company says you were not "legal" in your riding practice, then I think you'll care about the law? If you can't sue to recover because every attorney says the consensus about 3505(c) is that "...the first part of the sentence applies where there are two or more parallel lanes of traffic in the same direction, while the second half applies where there is one lane...", then I think you might care about the law?

Bike culture filters up, bike culture trickles down. Changing the same sex marriage laws or giving women the legal right to vote, or the Civil Rights Act, all made a difference eventually. Laws are not inconsequential. Grassroots changes in people's perceptions are not insignificant. Whatever works?

(Caveat: I use "you" to make a point. I do not mean you any harm nor wish any harm to befall you or anyone or any critter for that matter. Well, I don't abide ticks, or fleas or mosquitoes or flies. I'm not crazy about grain moths either.)

To my knowledge, which granted, is limited, the question up to this point has not been whether or not a cyclist being on the road is legal or illegal, the question has been whether or not striking a person on the road and killing them is illegal. So far, it has not been.

Making us more? legal on the road in no way makes killing us on the road any less legal. I think they're seperate issues

So far, DA's aren't touching stuff unless there is a clear intent to kill or gross, gross, gross neglience. (Like somebody driving with a blindfold on for fun). As long as it can be considered an "accident" they're not going to go after somebody.

@pierce ... the question has been whether or not striking a person on the road and killing them is illegal...

To mean this goes way beyond jsut cycling. All manner of car (or abominally large SUV) fatalities are not treated teh way other preventable fatalities in our society are.

For example in today's PG, a woman hit a building and injured a mother and infant. Na charges are expected to be filed.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11187/1158566-100.stm

Maybe we need a "no running into buildings" law too?

I have zero hope as long as stupidity like this prevails. "I meant to hit the brake pedal" should be a confession - not an excuse. Same with "I was playing wth my flip flop", "the sun was in my eyes", etc.

Whoa, slow down dudes (and dudettes), you're driving too close to home. A few years back I owned two buildings. The day I was moving into one, after extensive renovation by my hand, two hours after I went to my apt. to catch a little sleep before the moving van arrived, a 78 year old woman driving an '87 Pontiac(?) 2000 hit a curb, went airborne and drove through one and impacted the other at what the police officer who witnessed it estimated was 100 mph. Elderly Acceleration Syndrome (EAS) was credited; she hit the gas when she started to slide on the ice rather then the brake. It was the end of January. Thankfully after 3 months in ICU she pulled through and is doing fine. Insurance company is still withholding payment as I "owned the building(s) for too short a time". Yeah, yeah, "don't talk of active lawsuits on this board", whatever; it's all public record. Both buildings collapsed promptly. If I had been there I'd be dead. Big hole did make moving easier though I changed direction and moved things out instead of in. No charges were filed. My fault really; I should never have painted the huge tunnel on the side of that building. I could get in and out, but not the coyote.

Steven: I'm going to curb the "furthermore" redundancy argument. In fact, I'm starting from scratch.

I've given ieverhart's comments some thought, and think we should be addressing 3505(c) first and foremost, and 3301(b) as it relates.

3505(c) adds "unless it is unsafe to do so" quite explicitly to the clause "(relating to driving on right side of roadway)". It doesn't apply it to the part after the "or": "...as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..." You maintain it applies to both. I don't see how that can be with the language of 3505(c). Enlighten me?

So with that caveat added (only to the first part), 3301(b) now reads for cyclists:

"[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.

Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic (unless it is unsafe to do so), or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..."

Can I prove 3505(c)'s second instruction was not intended to ever apply to bicycles? Don't think so. In fact, it may apply when occupying a full lane "is unsafe to do so". Consider this example, and remember this is a "rule of the road", an instruction sheet for how to pilot a vehicle on a Commonwealth roadway.

To the troll's way of thinking, "upon all roadways" (4 or 1 lane, it doesn't matter), the (slow moving cycling) troll (SMCT) is riding along evilly in the center of the far right lane, objectifying and heckling everyone. If it becomes "unsafe to do so" then the SMCT is instructed to move "...as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..." [Aside: here's where the problem with applying the "unless it is unsafe to do so" to both clauses. If applied to the second clause, the cyclist who then finds the curb unsafe can move to the far left, or anywhere really. When I wrote that the phrase "unless it is unsafe to do so" was included as a political bone thrown to advocates of the "far right rule" this is what I think they meant to avoid. Having it only on the first part means the cyclist is constrained to the curb if occupying a full lane "is unsafe", creating a "far right rule" in fact. Having it apply to the first and second means a cyclist can go wherever the cyclist feels safe, or wherever is safe for traffic, whatever. And though I like that option, it's legally silly and renders the "rule" essentially meaningless.]

Amended and tailored to the cyclist by 3505(c), with this troll's revised read, 3301(b) makes sense. What is practicable doesn't enter into it until "unless it is unsafe to do so" is defined and the SMCT is forced to avail itself of the second option. Now the question is, "what does "unless it is unsafe to do so" mean"? This troll don't know, and lacking a sweeping knowledge of Commonwealth case law, and finding no definition or guidance in Title 75, thinks it vague and meaningless. (Little help here, ieverhart?) Just this troll's opinion.

We are comparing two different and discreet theories of interpretation of that rule, "the troll's" and McCrea's/the current thinking(?). (Unless you have another?) How does 3505(c) read with the latter take?

"[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.

Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic (unless it is unsafe to do so)(when there are two or more lanes moving in the same direction), or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway (unless it is unsafe to do so)(when there is only one lane)…"

First off, you have to add extra words to get to McCrea's meaning, and that's frowned upon. Second, it's self contradictory in that it begins with "upon all roadways" then changes its mind. Third, it does not provide clear instruction to the cyclist (as noted above). Fourth, cyclists are constrained as near as is practicable to the curb capriciously by words not found in the law when there is a single lane. Fifth, no instruction is provided for the cyclist traveling in an "unsafe" two lane one direction option as the "close as practicable option only applies to one lane situations! What is the "unsafe" cyclist to do? There may be more? I'm stopping now.

I think 3301(b) was intended to apply to wide vehicles. When ieverhart reminded me of the specific overriding the general it became clear 3301(b) as modified and qualified by 3305(c) means something specifically to pedalcyclists and something else to motor vehicles and likely something else to Mr. Ed, and that that's okay, so this interpretation begged. So thanks, ieverhart for that, and steven and Lyle (and others though not McCrea) for encouragement, playing along and pushing this discussion forward. (Guess the aftereffects of my road rage experience(s) (as a victim) are wearing off and my brain's working again?)

I still think the current thinking can and should be successfully challenged (for constraining cyclists to the curb in single lane situations), and that "unless it is unsafe to do so" merits clarification or removal.

Now for the fun bit: suppose there is a 14.5' wide pedal powered properly licensed implement of naked goat husbandry driven by an evil naked troll…

3505(c) adds "unless it is unsafe to do so" quite explicitly to the clause "(relating to driving on right side of roadway)".

No, I think you're misinterpreting that. It adds "unless it is unsafe to do so" to the provisions of section 3301(b). It also (parenthetically) mentions that the subject of section 3301 is "driving on right side of roadway" (that being the title of that section).

It's not adding "unless it is unsafe to do so" to the parenthesized section title, but to the entirety of section 3301(b).

The reason the text "(relating to driving on right side of roadway)" appears there is to remind the reader what section 3301 is about. The meaning of 3305(c) would not change if you deleted that reminder. You can find similar reminders (parenthesized section titles) throughout Title 75.

For a good example of this, look at section 3306. 3306(a) provides a general rule, and 3306(b) says "(b) Application of section.--This section does not apply under the conditions described in section 3301(a)(2),(3),(4) and (5) (relating to driving on right side of roadway)." This is saying that 3306's general rule doesn't apply under the 2nd through 5th of 3301(a)'s exceptions. But it does apply under the first of 3301(a)'s exceptions. It quotes 3301's overall section title, even though it's referring to only specific enumerated parts of the section.

So when 3505(c) says "driving on right side of roadway", it's not in any way talking about driving particularly close to the curb on the right. It's referring to the section title of a section which we can broadly summarize as "here in America we drive on the right, not the left". That's the only meaning of "right side" in the phrase "driving on right side of roadway" in 3505(c).

Aside: here's where the problem with applying the "unless it is unsafe to do so" to both clauses. If applied to the second clause, the cyclist who then finds the curb unsafe can move to the far left, or anywhere really.

Yes, he can if it would be unsafe to do otherwise, and no other rule (for instance, those in sections 3306 or 3307) prevents it.

But that's not a problem. It's a perfectly reasonable way for the rules to work.

Having it apply to the first and second means a cyclist can go wherever the cyclist feels safe, or wherever is safe for traffic, whatever.

No, 3305(c) means the cyclist can ignore 3301(b) (and only 3301(b)) if complying would be unsafe. Not anywhere he wants, since other rules limit that. And not based merely on his feeling.

The law doesn't make him the final arbiter of where it's safe (though cyclists sometimes claim this). The law says he can ignore 3301(b) only if complying would be unsafe. If a cyclist is charged with a violation, he's free to argue that following 3301(b) would have been unsafe. And a judge or jury is free to decide he's wrong, and it would have been safe for him to follow 3301(b).

Maybe it would be nice if the cyclist had all the power, and could merely declare that whatever he did was for safety, and those magic words would make any charges go away. But the law doesn't say that. It provides a standard of "unsafe" that a judge or jury would have to interpret and evaluate, the same as they have to interpret other words like "reasonable" and "prudent".

We are comparing two different and discreet theories of interpretation of that rule, "the troll's" and McCrea's/the current thinking(?). (Unless you have another?)

I guess I do. I don't see any support in the text for Jacob McCrea's interpretation. As I understand it, he's said that the first part of 3301(b) applies when there are multiple lanes, and the second part when there's a single lane.

I think his argument is that the text refers to "right-hand lane", and that only makes sense if there's more than one lane, so therefore it must only apply in such cases. But if you interpret the text that way, just look at 3331(b): "Left turn.--The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle." If the first part of 3301(b) only applies when there are multiple lanes, wouldn't 3331(b) also? That would mean it would be illegal to turn left unless there's more than one lane in your direction, obviously not what they intended. So neither section should be interpreted that way.

My interpretation of 3301(b) is that slow vehicles must either be driven in the rightmost available lane, or in the alternative, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb (with the various exceptions noted in the law). Doing either one complies with the law.

Some examples:

* As you argued, sufficiently wide vehicles physically cannot comply with the first part. So the only way to legally operate them is in compliance with the second part.

* Slow vehicles, whether cars, bikes or buggies, can comply with this section if they follow either part, since the text says "or", and doesn't put any further restrictions on which part applies when. So it's sufficient if they are driven in the right hand lane. This subsection doesn't require them to keep to the right within that lane. They can if they want to.

* If there's only one available lane in your direction, then that lane is the "right-hand lane". The intent would be clearer if it said "rightmost", which is what it means, but there's no other interpretation that makes sense. (Literally, "right-hand lane" means a lane "on or toward the right side of a person or thing", so if there are seven lanes in your direction, three of them would be right-hand lanes. Clearly it doesn't mean that, and the closest plausible meaning for "right-hand lane" that makes the seven-lane example come out as expected, with one lane, is "rightmost lane".)

* A cyclist has an additional option, due to 3305(c). If it's unsafe to ride in the rightmost lane, she can ride in another one, as long as it doesn't violate any other sections. ("Unsafe" is a call she must make, but it can be second-guessed by a judge or jury. This is just like how a motorist has to interpret section 3310's "reasonable and prudent" standard on following too closely. She can't just declare that whatever distance she picked was reasonable. A judge or jury gets to second-guess her call in the same way.)

Now, if there are court decisions that have interpreted this section in the way Jacob suggests, I guess that settles it (pending further, better, decisions). I'm not in a position to know that. Nor do I know for sure which of the various interpretations is the "current thinking" in legal circles, or in cyclist circles, or any other circles, only what I think the most direct reading of the text is.

I think you and I agree that the law doesn't require cyclists to keep to the right within the rightmost usable lane. We disagree about the reason why though.

Well, heck, steven, think you're right that I misapplied the "unless it is unsafe to do so." One could throw it at the front of 3301(b) and it would stick like this:

"[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.

Unless it is unsafe to do so, upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway..."

And I'm back to my original interpretation. Great! Only reason a slow moving cycling naked troll would be compelled to travel "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway…" is when the SMCNT is pedaling that 14.5' foot wide properly permitted implement of goat husbandry.

As I accept how the "unless it is unsafe to do so" admonition is to be applied, I don't think we actually have any disagreements on the why? Don't want to put words in your mouth.

As to "unsafe…", that is indeed a judgement call first reviewed by an Officer of the Court, then a Hearing Examiner and then a Trier of Fact and then on up the line, or however it goes. Did not mean to and don't think I did imply anything else. Title 75 has no definition for "unsafe…", and I don't know of pertinent case law in the Commonwealth for that standard.

I quoted McCrea's text above from the "new-fixed-bike-lanes-on-beechwood" thread, and I think it's pretty straightforward, and wrong. Lyle wrote in the same thread "…I think that the referenced statute (3301(b) and/or3505(c)) means multiple lanes moving in the same direction, because (a) that's what most people think it means and afaik there's no case law or other legislation that indicates the contrary and (b) because if it doesn't then 3301a is redundant." They both suggest this is the "right" interpretation and popular opinion. (In all fairness, Lyle did "skim" my original "wide things" argument in this thread and may have reconsidered?)

However, you are wrong when you write "I think you and I agree that the law doesn't require cyclists to keep to the right within the rightmost usable lane." Way wrong. Consider the slow moving cycling naked troll legally driving a 14.5' wide implement of goat husbandry on a roadway with a 10' wide single direction lane. 3505(c)/3301(b) requires the SMCNT travel "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway…" Well, unless it is unsafe to do so?

Consider the slow moving cycling naked trolls, they toil not, neither do they spin…how then do they ride about?

I adore the definition of pedalcycle in Title 75: ""Pedalcycle." A vehicle propelled solely by human-powered pedals. The term does not mean a three-wheeled human-powered pedal-driven vehicle with a main driving wheel 20 inches in diameter or under and primarily designed for children six years of age or younger." In other words, anything but a "Big Wheel"? Had the writer just watched "The Shining"?

I happily accept your correction on the matter of cycles too wide to fit in a single lane. So I think we now agree.

Now to convince the rest of the planet.

I see that the text for the proposed revisions to Title 75 fails to address one point in the current law that could really do with more clarity. "...shall be driven in the right-hand lane ..." should say "rightmost" instead of "right-hand", to make it sensible when there are four or more lanes, and unambiguous when there's just one. It's passed the House, and currently in a Senate committee. I guess it's too late to change the bill now?

No, not too late until the Governor signs it. The LA (Legislative Assistant) to the Committee handling the bill in the Senate would be one person to approach/email, and your local State senator as well.

Need to take a few days off from this, let it ferment, do some more research, and read up on this proposed bill too. I've left a few points and comments you've made dangling, and will attend to them on return. Intend to rework the brief, and run it by an old friend who recently retired from 20+ years as head clerk for a state Supreme Court, then repost if there is interest?

If I want or need to use any of your ideas or text I'll ask your permission first? Fair enough?

Thanks for the feedback and discussion.

Feel free to use my ideas and/or text.

But don't go blaming me if some judge finds them unconvincing.

I'd be interested to see your next version.

Thanks for your suggestion on HB 170. Do you know how I'd find out who's the legislative assistant for the State Senate's Transportation committee? I didn't see that info on the committee's page.

The 4ft passing law is a bad idea. Its people that aren't obeying existing laws that cause accidents. I don't have any problem riding over to the right as far as I'm able, and I can't even remember my last negative interaction from a motorist. If you put a 4ft passing law into effect it would result in traffic gridlock ...soon to be followed by a law restricting the bicyclers freedom to ride on the roads.

@boazo: You're assuming people are going to follow the law, and that it will be enforced. That's a bit of leap, IMHO. People don't follow posted speed limits, or traffic signals, so how do you expect them to follow a law that isn't posted.

I like the idea of clarifying the vehicle code to allow that users who aren't maintaining prevailing speeds still have a right to use the road, though.

BTW, IANAL(awyer|egislator), so how are changes to the vehicle code disseminated to the driving public?

so how are changes to the vehicle code disseminated to the driving public?

Oh, their knowledge of applicable changes is checked whenever they retest to renew...their......license.........never mind.

It still a bad idea to put the 4ft passing law on the books -- it opens the door to legislation that would restrict or ban bikes from roads. There is alot more motorists than cyclists. The motorist could say : "if its unsafe, they shoudn't be allowed on roads . period." The law makes it seem like its more unsafe than it really is.

I don't like the 4 ft passing law For a bunch of reasons.

To me, except at the hightest speeds, 30 inches seems enough.

When a car passes a car on a multilane street, there is often less than 4 ft between them. Doesn't seem unsafe. (And plenty of car behavior seems *and is* unsafe.)

I would never consider stopping rather than passing a car with considerably less than 4 ft between me and the car. It's hard to imagine the law not going both ways.

Boazo's concern seems good to me, too.

I'm totally going to pull a contrarian/split personality thing here, I apologize.

boazo - the motorists could say that it's unsafe and use the law as proof. they could also say "it's legal to speed 10mph over the limit" and "driving and texting is only a bad idea for some people, I do just fine at it". They can also all be wrong. I'm pretty sure if/when that law passes, it will be noticed and lauded by some cyclists and nobody else will blink. I'm fairly certain it won't be used to press charges even when cyclists are struck, since clearly the cars weren't "passing" the now dead cyclist, they were "hitting" him/her. Maybe this is more cynicism, but I don't see it making a single iota of difference other than feeding some (accurate) righteousness.

Mick - have you ever seen a motorist who has an accurate understanding of the size of their vehicle and relative locations of its bumpers/exterior? Ever? For some, 4' will end up being 15'. For others, 4' will end up being 30". The only thing it definitely isn't is 0", or whatever the officer thinks it isn't. Which could be anything (or nothing). Remember, practically speaking when it comes to the law, it isn't reality that matters, it's perception. And sometimes it's not even perception. I'm sorry, I think some people call it "interpretation" (which never goes both ways).

I'm really not in the foul mood that I appear to be in, I'm not sure what's wrong with me these days, I apologize. Not enough biking, definitely.

I would never consider stopping rather than passing a car with considerably less than 4 ft between me and the car. It's hard to imagine the law not going both ways.

when the results of a collision are symmetric, the laws can be symmetric.

@hiddenvariable when the results of a collision are symmetric, the laws can be symmetric.

Laws tend towards symmetry.

"The majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

-Anatole France

laws may be symmetrical, but those laws must be enforced via citation and prosecution. I'm not sure anybody believes that citation and prosecution are symmetrical.