In this edition of Bike Law University, we take a look at Where to Ride laws and how they have shaped bicyclists safety.

What are they?

Where to Ride laws tell bicycles, or vehicles generally, how they should position themselves on the road. These laws create and manage the expectations of road users regarding the behavior of others while traveling on the road. In most states, the law that applies to bicyclists regarding road position starts with a variation of requiring a position as far to the right as practicable.

When you talk about Where to Ride laws it is necessary to begin by defining the word practicable. In most states a bicyclist is required by law to ride as far to the right as practicable, sometimes referred to as AFRAP. The obvious and necessary question to a bicyclist seeking to comply with the law, motorists judging bicyclist behavior, and law enforcement officials tasked with enforcing the law is – what does practicable mean? So, inevitably a dictionary is consulted and we learn that it means “capable of being put into practice,” which is likely to mean one thing to an experienced road cyclist, one thing to a driver who is annoyed at a “law breaking” cyclist safely taking the lane, and a different thing to every law enforcement officer who by order or inclination enforces the law. What is practicable is often context sensitive based upon road and traffic conditions. The League generally recommends that cyclists ride in the right third of the lane with traffic.

Click here to see the full chart.

Cyclists and police at times disagree over where on the road cyclists can ride. Cyclists have successfully fought tickets issued under Where to Ride statutes based upon exceptions in the law, including narrow lanes and hazards. Local bicycling advocates and League Certified Instructors can be valuable resources if you are ever prosecuted under a Where to Ride law. If a disagreement occurs, it may be useful to consult bicycle safety education materials and roadway design manuals. In addition, sharrows, where marked, are usually meant to serve as an indication of where to ride and can be used as an insight into official ideas of what is “practicable.”

In the states that do not use the language “as far to the right as practicable” there seem to be three reasons for the difference:

• New York defines its standard in terms of a cyclist’s impact on traffic
• Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Washington essentially substitute “as safe” for “as practicable”
• Arkansas and Massachusetts do not provide unique lane positioning rules for cyclists or vehicles travelling at less than the prevailing speed of traffic

In most states there are a number of exceptions to the general requirement to ride as far to the right as practicable that allow a bicyclist to take the lane in certain situations. The seven most common exceptions are listed below:

1. Operating at or above the rate of speed of normal traffic flow on the roadway
2. Passing
3. Turning to the left
4. Avoiding hazards or hazardous roadway conditions (usually this is accompanied by a non-exhaustive list of hazards, often including parked cars to address the door zone)
5. Operating in a lane that is not sufficiently wide for a bicycle and vehicle to operate side by side
6. Operating on a one-way street, in which case a bicyclist may ride near to the left side of the roadway
7. Intending to proceed straight when the right-most lane is a right turn only lane (to avoid a right hook conflict)

These exceptions, along with the indefinite nature of what is “practicable”, can give cyclists substantial autonomy in deciding where they feel comfortable riding on a roadway given the conditions that exist on that roadway. Although these rules are usually phrased as exceptions, they can also be seen as clarifications regarding when it is practicable to ride to the right.

It is important that cyclists are equipped with the legal rights to determine where they want to ride. When conflicts over shared road space arise between bicyclists and other road users or law enforcement it is important that safety is the primary concern rather than ideas about the hierarchy of road users and good Where to Ride laws allow the cyclist to decide what is safe.

 Spotlight State – Colorado

Rather than using the “as far to the right as practicable” language of most states, Colorado says that a bicyclists shall ride “far enough to the right as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of … overtaking vehicles.” Unlike the confusing term practicable, this language explicitly balances a cyclist’s need for safety with demands for efficient traffic flow. Cyclists are given further control over where they choose to ride because they are not expected or required to ride without a reasonable safety margin to the edge of the roadway. In addition, the law provides for all seven of the common exceptions to the “as far to the right as practicable” rule.

The language of Colorado’s law is the result of Bicycle Colorado’s efforts after one police officer, acting upon his own unique interpretation of practicable, issued numerous tickets for failure to ride “as far to the right as practicable.” Bicycle Colorado attempted to educate the police officer regarding cycling safety and the reasons that his interpretation of practicable was detrimental to cyclist safety, but no common understanding was reached. By changing the law Bicycle Colorado was able to change this difficult to understand law to language that actually says something, and embodies the education message that would otherwise have to be done on a personal basis. Now cyclists, drivers, and law enforcement officers can simply look at the law, rather than having to resort to a dictionary and their own experiences to determine where a bicyclist can and should ride.

Why should you care?

Where to Ride laws are an important part of bicyclists’ right to the road because they regulate bicyclists’ use of the road. When safety requires a bicyclist to take the lane it is important that the law allows a bicyclist to do so. There seem to be two primary justifications for Where to Ride laws: 1) concern for bicyclist safety, and 2) concern that bicycles interfere with traffic flow. Let’s take a look at how these laws address these two justifications:

1) Bicyclist safety: Where to Rde laws are essential so that bicyclists are told to ride with traffic because they gain significant safety benefits when they do so. Bicyclists riding against traffic are more than 3 times more likely to be in an accident. To be safe a bicyclist needs room to maneuver in an emergency and the confidence to position him or herself appropriately given road and traffic conditions. The requirement to ride to the right does a great job of addressing that people ride with traffic. The seven common exceptions to this requirement provide a basis for bicyclists to position themselves so that they are visible to motor vehicle traffic, act like other vehicles, or otherwise protect themselves from turning vehicles and other hazards.

2) Bicyclists and traffic flow: Where to Ride laws address traffic flow by requiring bicycles to be operated on the far right side of the road, allowing motor vehicle traffic room to pass when a road is wide enough. Two of the common exceptions to the ride to the right requirement have a direct relationship to traffic flow.

• When a bicycle is operated at or above the speed of normal traffic flow there is no traffic flow or safety reason for a bicycle to be operated in a way other than a motor vehicle, and so in most states a bicycle is not required to ride to the far right in those circumstances.
• When a lane is not sufficiently wide for a bicycle and a vehicle to operate side by side there is a significant potential that riding to the far right may invite unsafe passing, and so in most states a bicycle is not required to ride to the far right in those circumstances. This exception correctly prioritizes bicyclist safety over fast traffic flow. It also appears to be one of the most commonly litigated exceptions as bicyclists taking the lane according to this exception are more likely to be in conflict with motor vehicle traffic flow for an extended period of time.

Good Where to Ride laws manage the expectations of drivers and let drivers know that a bicyclist has the right to take the lane according to their personal judgment of their safety and road conditions. Bad Where to Ride laws prioritize motor vehicle traffic flow and limit the ability of a bicyclist to make judgments about their own personal safety.  Additionally, bad laws may subject a bicyclist to prosecution and a fine for attempting to ride safely. It is important that our laws prioritize safety for all road users.

Who has them?

Forty three states, and Washington, D.C., have a law that requires vehicles, or bicycles, to operate on the right side of the road and as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable if travelling at less than the prevailing speed of traffic.

As previously discussed there are seven common exceptions to this requirement, and they occur in different frequencies. The average for all states is to have slightly more than 4 exceptions. The most common number of exceptions for a state to have is 6.

(Photo credit: Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation)

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

Recent legislative successes include the “Access to Justice for Bicyclists Act of 2012” in Washington D.C., the recent endorsement of a vulnerable user ordinance by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (read more about that campaign here) and a statewide law in Utah. While VRU protections have proliferated in the past five years, they continue to take many shapes.

So, in this edition of Bike Law University, we explore the current laws and the concept behind them.

What are they?

Automobiles provide a shell of protection for their users — creating a safety disparity between cars and other road users. This is not to say non-automobile forms of transportation aren’t safe, but simply that there is a difference between what occurs when a car is hit at 25 miles-per-hour and what occurs when a pedestrian is hit at 25 mph. While the percentage of motorist deaths has fallen, the percentage of road fatalities that are bicyclists and pedestrians has grown in recent years (from 12 percent to 16 percent).

Vulnerable Road User laws increase protection for bicyclists and other road users who are not in cars. They are relatively new and states have chosen to protect vulnerable road users in a variety of ways. This includes usually involves 1) harsher penalties for the violation of existing laws when that violation impacts a defined set of road users or 2) the creation of new laws that prohibit certain actions directed at a defined set of road users.

Click the image above for the full chart.

Why should you care?

Safety: The vast majority of VRU laws provide for increased fines or civil liability in cases where a vulnerable road user is injured or killed because of negligence or as the result of a traffic violation. These laws increase the cost of unsafe practices that impact bicyclists and provide an incentive for safer driving practices, especially around cyclists and pedestrians. In this way the laws are much like increased fines in work zones, which promote construction worker safety. VRU laws recognize that the type of simple negligence or traffic violations that may result in minor collisions between cars can have disproportionately severe results when a vulnerable road user is involved and provide ways to address those divergent results.

Justice: In some states VRU laws include the option or mandate that a person convicted of injuring or killing a vulnerable road user attend a hearing. Without these laws, a driver who injures or kills a bicyclist may simply pay a fine through the mail — despite the severity of the impact of his or her actions. These hearings can provide a chance for both sides to meet and tell their stories, similar to victim impact panels that are a feature of DUI offenses. The League believes the experience of a hearing is a valuable tool for addressing the separateness between motorists and bicyclists — and endorses requiring a hearing as part of our Model Legislation (http://www.bikeleague.org/action/bikelaws/modellaws.php).

Messaging: VRU laws may be an important and effective part of messaging about road safety. The VRU concept is inclusive and multi-modal. It provides a messaging and legal framework for a wide range of advocates interested in road safety that highlights and increases awareness of the inherent safety disparity between road users encased in a protective shell and those who are not. As a newer concept, it has the potential to engage law enforcement, judges, and juries in a way that they have not been been before and shift perceptions. While these individuals or groups may not always understand what it is like to be a cyclist, at one time or another everyone has been a vulnerable road user.

Enforcement: A VRU law may increase access to justice. Vulnerable road users, unlike automobile users, may lack the evidence and expensive property damage that is created in a car crash. Statutory civil penalties may provide an incentive for lawyers to work with vulnerable road users to recover damages and recognize the serious of vulnerable road user crashes. Criminal penalties provide an additional enforcement tool for police and a framework for better traffic enforcement.

Who has them?

Five states – Delaware, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington – have VRU laws that define a set of road users as vulnerable and provide specific processes and penalties for actions directed at those users. The District of Columbia and 17 other states in some way address vulnerable road users by prohibiting certain actions — such as harassment or the throwing of objects — or by providing the ability for persons to be charged with greater penalties when their actions result in the injury or death of a vulnerable road user.

Where did they come from?

The first state to pass a vulnerable road user law, which defined a set of road users as vulnerable and provided specific penalties for actions directed at those users, was Oregon, in 2007. Many of the other laws that protect vulnerable road users from certain actions were passed in response to tragedies caused by motorist-bicyclist collisions. As of the last revision to the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in 2000, there is no UVC section equivalent to vulnerable road user laws. The closest relevant section is UVC 11-1111, which deals with glass and other substances likely to injure on a roadway. Some variation of UVC 11-1111 has been adopted in a majority of states.

Spotlight State: Oregon

Oregon enacted the first Vulnerable Road User law in the U.S. in 2007. The law provides a definition of vulnerable users and sets out distinct penalties for the serious physical injury or death of vulnerable road users under the careless driving law. Careless driving is a Class A or B traffic violation — depending on whether it involves a crash — and requires a hearing when it involves the serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable road user. The penalties are significant when that careless driving results in a serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable road user: a fine that’s six times the standard maximum fine for a Class A traffic violation and a one-year suspension of driving privileges.

In addition, Oregon addresses vehicular assault against bicyclists and pedestrians as a separate Class A misdemeanor. This vehicular assault law can complement or provide an alternative to a citation for a violation of Oregon’s safe passing law, giving law enforcement options to account for different driver behavior or enforcement concerns related to the safe passing law.

Learn more about how the vulnerable road user law was developed and enacted here. Since the initial law, advocates, like the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, have worked for improvements, including an amendment in 2011.

Photo: Alliance for Biking & Walking Photo Library

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

First, there was the glorious return of the winged wheel to the League’s logo. Then there were several requests for “proof” of the link between the League of American Wheelmen and AAA. And, of course, with Women’s History Month comes a string a fascinating profiles of women that have a left a mark on the history of bicycling (including our own Phyllis Harmon).

Where to go for all this information?

The role of the League in the creation of the Good Roads Movement and everything that followed from that is excellently documented by Richard Weingroff and fellow authors at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), of all places. I say “of all places,” but, of course, the FHWA most definitely traces it’s own existence directly back to the League of American Wheelmen and their lobbying for the creation of an Office of Road Inquiry in 1892. Colonel Albert Pope was one of the founders of the LAW and a force behind the creation of the Good Roads Movement. General Roy Stone took the idea and ran with it, including pitching the idea of The National Road, and being one of the founding members of the Automobile Club of America (which went on to be a founding member of the American Automobile Association).

The League’s influential past is more than matched on the other side of the Atlantic by the UK’s Cyclists Touring Club (CTC). Those parallels are about to get a thorough airing thanks to the extraordinary work and creativity of Carlton Reid — and the support of a lot of individuals who responded to a kickstarter campaign to fund publication of Reid’s “Roads Were Not Built for Cars.” In fact, interest was so high that the initial fundraising goal was reached in 20 hours and attracted the attention of Kickstarter staff themselves.

The League’s story is entertainingly told by Reid (and he actually did take the time and planned ahead to visit the Smithsonian!), and there are plenty of relevant Women’s History Month stories in there as well. Check it out…

Andy Clarke
League President

Andy Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director. Before joining the League in February 2003, Clarke was on contract to provide technical assistance to the highly regarded Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center on site at the Federal Highway Administration. He is on the Board of Directors for America Bikes, and a member of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.

But the Peach State is one of two dozen that have some version of a Share the Road plate. In this edition of Bike Law University, we explore the what, why and where of this increasingly important funding source.

What are they?

Share the Road license plates are specialty plates for cars that show support for the bicycling community. Specialty license plates are usually created after a legislative or administrative process that involves a certain amount of guaranteed sales. Plates can usually be bought at any time and often provide dedicated funding for an advocacy organization in a state.

Why should you care?

In many states, funds gained through Share the Road license plates are set aside for bicycle safety or education programs, or are shared with bicycle advocacy organizations in the state. In this way, Share the Road plates can be an important tool to ensure that there is dedicated funding for bicycling advocacy organizations or programs in addition to spreading the valuable message to “share the road.” Specialty plates can also be a form of outreach for bicycling advocacy organizations because they are purchased through the state Department of Motor Vehicles or equivalent agency and may expose [unfinished sentence].

Who has them?

Twenty four states have some version of a “Share the Road” plate. In 15 of those states, a bicycling advocacy organization is identified in the law or otherwise to receive funds from the program. In two states, Connecticut and West Virginia, a law is on the books but there is currently no way to purchase the specialty plates.

Where did they come from?

The first state to issue a Share the Road plate was Florida in 1999. For more information on how Share the Road plates began please visit this website: http://sharetheroad.org/the-story/. As of the last revision to the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in 2000, there is no UVC section relevant to the creation and operation of a share the road license plate program.

Spotlight States – Mississippi and Iowa

Mississippi: Mississippi is one of 11 states that designate a bicycling advocacy organization as the recipient of funds produced from the sale of “share the road” specialty license plates. The Mississippi law also gives its chosen bicycling advocacy organization, the Bicycling Advocacy Group of Mississippi, better known as Bike Walk Mississippi, an advisory role in the design of the plates.

Iowa: In Iowa, an organization can get a specialty license plate through either a law or administrative process. The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) sponsored the Iowa Bicycle Coalition to create a specialty plate administratively. The Iowa Bicycle Coalition had complete control over the design of the plates, but had to pre-sell 500 plates in order to complete the administrative process. There are now more than 1,300 Share the Road plates on the road and it is the second highest selling specialty plate in the state.

Click image for the full chart.

Challenges

Unlike most of the laws highlighted in this series, the laws that enable specialty license plates actively involve a state agency. This can be great because it gets advocacy organizations to work together, but it can also create issues. Some of the issues that appeared as I did research on the subject include:

• Threats to funding dedicated to an organization by statute due to state budget issues
• Administrative complexity related to altering license plate designs
• Costly and time consuming start-up costs related to pre-selling plates
• Costumer confusion regarding whether a plate purchase includes a membership with the organization it benefits
• Lack of information sharing between the issuing state agency and the benefitted organization, so valuable information regarding customers is not available for the benefitted organization’s use

I heard several strategies to address these issues including:

• Partnering with other organizations that benefit from specialty license plates to reform the administrative processes surrounding changing plate designs, information sharing, and start-up or to protect the dedicated nature of funding from plate sales
• Work with the issuing state agency at both state and local levels to ensure that retail outlets have information that effectively presents the specialty plate and its purpose
• Survey members so that they are aware of the specialty plate creation process and the difference between plate purchase and membership
• Dedicate some funding raised through a specialty plate to advertisement and outreach to sell more specialty plates

Questions? Contact me at ken@bikeleague.org.

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

You may be asking: Why now? Why Secretary LaHood? Isn’t he an ally?

He sure is. But the bike-friendly Secretary oversees an agency that sometimes needs a little persuasion to take bicycling issues seriously.

For example, the 650 cyclists killed on our nation’s roads every year hasn’t been enough to make bicyclists’ safety a priority for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — it’s only about 2% of all traffic fatalities, after all.

Similarly, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State Departments of Transportation have done little to alter the fact that less 0.5% of highway safety funds is being spent to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian crashes — despite the fact that people who bike and walk account for almost 16% of all traffic deaths.

So why now, and why ask for a “performance measure”?

Here’s why:

• MAP-21, the new federal transportation law, requires USDOT to establish safety performance measures for states to meet – but, once again, no performance measure related to the safety of people who bike and walk is currently being considered.

• The number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities has risen for the past two years (2010 and 2011) while overall traffic deaths have gone down quite dramatically — that means the percentage of fatalities that are bike/ped has risen from 12% to nearly 16%.

• MAP-21 almost doubled the amount of funding available for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), a program run by state Departments of Transportation. Unfortunately, that program has woefully small investments in bike/ped safety projects: Only seven states have spent any of these funds on bike/ped projects, and combined they’ve spent less than 0.5% of the funds annually.

• These HSIP funds specifically can be used to fix more than just high crash locations (which are naturally dominated by cars); they also can be used to reduce crash potential and to address systemic design issues that cause common crash types.

So to recap… The good news is that bicycling and walking are on the rise nationwide. The bad news is that bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities are also rising. Fortunately, more funds are available to fix traffic safety. But, unfortunately, there is no sign of any increase in spending on bike/ped safety. Absent any real target, focus, incentive, leadership, or guidance from the top, states are unlikely to change that unforgivable oversight.

Against that backdrop, it’s critical the USDOT set a specific national goal of reducing bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities. We think a 50% reduction by 2020 is within our reach.

We think it’s essential to hold states accountable to meaningful performance measures that are flexible and focused on outcomes. We know that four states (FL, CA, TX and NY) routinely account for more than 40% of all bicyclist fatalities every year, while several states have none. A good performance measure can be flexible enough to ensure responsibility for bringing down the overall number is appropriately distributed.

Last week, the members of the American Bikes coalition sent a letter to Secretary LaHood asking for a national goal and performance measures to address bicyclist and pedestrian safety specifically.

That’s why we urge you to add your voice to ours, today!

Andy Clarke
League President

Andy Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director. Before joining the League in February 2003, Clarke was on contract to provide technical assistance to the highly regarded Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center on site at the Federal Highway Administration. He is on the Board of Directors for America Bikes, and a member of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.

Currently, no state has such a requirement, though a good number have a similar statute to Maryland’s: mandating helmet use for bicyclists under the age of 16.

With all the discussion about helmet laws, I figured it was a good time to tackle this thorny issue in my ongoing Bike Law University series…

What are helmet laws?

Helmet laws require any person on a bicycle wear a helmet. All current helmet laws are directed at persons under the age of 18. No state requires mandatory helmet use by all bicyclists. In many states,  helmet laws can be enforced against the person on the bicycle or against a parent of that person. Some states with a mandatory helmet use law limit whether compliance with the law can be considered in civil lawsuits in order to prevent their laws from limiting the recovery of bicyclists who are injured. There are many other variations on the enforcement and effect of mandatory helmet use laws, as discussed through the laws of our spotlight states.

Why should you care?

The use of helmets is perhaps the most common recommendation for safer bicycling. The League has encouraged bicyclists to wear helmets for more than 25 years, and our affiliated clubs and advocacy groups typically require their use on organized rides. However, the League does not support mandatory helmet laws because of the many potential unintended consequences.

The experience of countries with greater bicycle use than the United States tells us that safer bicycling comes from many policy decisions — especially safer infrastructure — and does not require mandatory helmet use laws. Mandatory helmet use laws may hurt bicyclist safety overall by discouraging bicycling, by promoting the idea that it is an unsafe activity or by raising a barrier to transportation choice — despite being the safest choice for an individual cyclist. We all want safer bicycling and policies that encourage more people to ride, provide appropriate facilities, and educate all road users about safely sharing the road. These are likely to be more effective in the long term.

Who has them?

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that require persons under the age of 18 to wear a helmet. Within that, however, the age threshold varies widely. Of states that require helmet use, most (12) only require helmets for persons less than 16 years of age. Of the 15 states that require helmet use, the District of Columbia and Virginia — which does not require helmet use — maintain a law that limits the consideration of failure to wear a helmet in a lawsuit. This protects the ability of a bicyclist who chose not to wear a helmet to recover damages if they are injured in a crash. The need for and effect of such a law may be more or less necessary depending upon how liability or fault is determined in a state.

(Click on the image to view the full chart showing the breakdown of helmet laws across the country.)

Where did they come from?

The first state to pass a mandatory helmet law was California in 1986. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has had mandatory helmet performance requirements for helmet manufacturers since 1999. As of the last revision to the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in 2000, there is no UVC section equivalent to a helmet law.

Spotlight States – New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania

When a community chooses to adopt a mandatory helmet use law there are many things to consider. The most common legal concept that varies between states is the age of the persons affected by the mandatory use law. The age standards of the states that have mandatory helmet use laws are detailed in the chart below. States have enacted laws that include some other legal concepts that I would like to highlight. No one state has a statute that includes all of the concepts that may be useful to consider when evaluating a mandatory helmet law, so here we’ll look at three.

New York – VAT §1238

Limitation on Effect of Law – When you create a mandatory helmet use law you open up injured bicyclists to losing out on their ability to recover damages when they are injured if they were not wearing a helmet in compliance with the law. In certain situations, such as being hit by a speeding car, this could create inequity between injured bicyclists, or the families of deceased bicyclists, because of the law rather than the circumstances of the crash. By limiting the ability to consider compliance with a mandatory helmet use law ensures that the focus is on the circumstances of a crash rather than the compliance of the bicyclist with the law.

(7) “The failure of any person to comply with the provisions of this section shall not constitute contributory negligence or assumption of risk, and shall not in any way bar, preclude or foreclose an action for personal injury or wrongful death by or on behalf of such person, nor in any way diminish or reduce the damages recoverable in any such action.”

Dismissal for hardship – In the United States data suggests that helmet ownership and usage is lower among low-income communities. Free or subsidized helmet programs have been shown to be an effective intervention to increase ownership and use within low-income communities. By providing for a waiver due  economic hardship the law helps ensure that the impact of a mandatory helmet use law is not felt disproportionately by low-income communities or provide limit the ability of low-income individuals to take advantage of bicycling as a form of cheap  transportation.

(6)(c) “The court may waive any fine for which a person … if the court finds that due to reasons of economic hardship such person was unable to purchase a helmet or due to such economic hardship such person was unable to obtain a helmet from the [statewide helmet distribution program].”

New Jersey – §39:4-10.2

Dedication of fines

(b) “All money collected as fines … shall be deposited in a nonlapsing revolving fund to be known as the ‘Bicycle and Skating Safety Fund.’  Interest earned on money deposited in the fund shall accrue to the fund.  Money in the fund shall be utilized by the director to provide educational programs devoted to bicycle, roller skating and skateboarding safety.  If the director … also may use … the money to assist low income families in purchasing approved bicycle helmets.”

Pennsylvania – 75: §3510

Dismissal for purchase – The purpose of a mandatory helmet use law is to ensure that people have and use helmets while bicycling. By providing a waiver of a fine for a violation of a mandatory helmet use law if a bicyclist can show the purchase of a helmet a bicyclist is given an incentive to ensure they can comply with the law in the future.

(b)(2) “If a person receives a citation … a [ judge] shall dismiss the charges if the person prior to or at the person’s hearing displays evidence of acquisition of a helmet … [judge]. Sufficient evidence shall include a receipt mailed to the appropriate court officer which evidences purchase or transfer of such a helmet from another helmet owner, evidenced by a notarized letter.”

Religious exception – Some religions have beliefs that are inconsistent with properly wearing a bicycle helmet. For instance, devout Sikhs are expected to wear a turban which a bicycle helmet cannot accommodate. By providing a religious exception to the application of a mandatory helmet use law these religious communities are not disproportionately affected by the law and continue to use and enjoy bicycles.

(b)(3) “This section shall not apply to a child under 12 years of age who can produce a statement from the family’s church authorities attesting that it is against the tenets of the family’s religion to wear a helmet.”

Stay tuned for future Bike Law University posts and check out our interactive map to learn more about laws in your state.

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

We know you’re keen to learn more, so, over coming weeks, we’ll delve into each of the 11 categories we highlighted, from sidewalk riding to distracted driving. To start, we’re taking a deep dive into Safe Passing Laws.

What are Safe Passing Laws?

Safe passing laws require vehicles to pass each other at a safe distance. In most states, the amount of space necessary to be “safe” isn’t defined, but, in a growing number of states, there are laws that say a safe distance between a bicyclist and a motorist is not less than three feet.

Click the image to download the chart showing safe passing laws for all 50 states and DC

Why should you care?

A safe passing law is valuable because it raises awareness as to how vehicles should share the road. It may also lead to enforcement actions against unsafe passing or be used in legal actions resulting from collisions or other incidents between road users.

Who has them?

All states have some version of a safe passing law. In 32 states, and the District of Columbia, the safe passing law explicitly mentions bicyclists. In the other 18 states, bicyclists are protected by safe passing laws written with no distinction between bicyclists and other road users.

In 24 states, and the District of Columbia, there is a defined distance standard — typically three feet — which sets the minimum distance required for safe passing. The other 26 states do not define what constitutes a safe distance in terms of feet. There are four states – Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont – which have laws that do not define a minimum safe distance in terms of feet, but are significantly different than the Uniform Vehicle Code in a way that provides more protection to bicyclists.

Spotlight State – New Hampshire

New Hampshire has a great law regulating safe passing because it incorporates several different concepts to ensure that a bicyclist is protected. The law states:

Every driver of a vehicle, when approaching a bicyclist, shall insure the safety and protection of the bicyclist and shall exercise due care by leaving a reasonable and prudent distance between the vehicle and the bicycle. The distance shall be presumed to be reasonable and prudent if it is at least 3 feet when the vehicle is traveling at 30 miles per hour or less, with one additional foot of clearance required for every 10 miles per hour above 30 miles per hour. – N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §265:143-a

This law touches on three important concepts:

1. Due care – By saying that a driver must exercise due care the law creates a relationship of responsibility for the driver of a vehicle approaching a bicyclist. Language stating a due care requirement may make it easier for bicyclists to hold a driver liable if hit.
2. Defined distance – By stating that a reasonable and prudent distance is one of at least 3 feet the law makes it easy to publicize what is regarded as a safe distance and reinforces the most commonly required safe passing distance.
3. Variable distance – By stating that a reasonable and prudent distance is one that varies with increased speed, the law makes it clear that three feet is not an absolute. What is safe can vary depending upon speed and road conditions. Recognizing this is rare amongst state laws that define a safe distance.

Where did they come from?

The first state to pass a three foot law was Wisconsin in 1973. Safe passing laws that do not define a distance are generally derived from the model laws found in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC), which was last updated in 2000.

There are three UVC sections that have an impact on safe passing laws. If you would like to know more about safe passing in your state, or you are considering new legislation in this area of law, finding your state’s equivalent statutes for the following UVC sections would be a good place to look.

UVC 11-303: Overtaking a Vehicle on the Left – This section is the source of the safe distance language used by a majority of states.

UVC 11-305: Limitations on Overtaking on the Left – This section generally deals with crossing the center-line of the roadway in order to pass another vehicle. Crossing the center line can be relevant to safe passing laws because a vehicle may have to cross the center line in order to provide a safe distance while passing, therefore it is important that vehicles are allowed to do so.

UVC 11-306: Further Limitations on Driving on Left of Center of Roadway– This section deals with crossing the center-line of the roadway in order to pass when there are specific road circumstances that compromise visibility. Since it only applies when there are specific road circumstances, like a curve or slope that may affect visibility, it is less likely to create problems when interacting with a safe passing law.

Click to download the chart of safe passing laws for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

We’ve been paying particular attention because he lives not far from the League’s own Scott Williams in Takoma Park, Md. In fact, they are passing acquaintances… i.e. McDonough usually passes Scott on his bike ride to work.

McDonough’s appointment was made official late last week, along with the shocking news that the new Chief of Staff may not be able to continue riding his bike to work. That, according to President Obama, “probably isn’t allowed.”

The League’s office is only a couple of blocks from the White House and we haven’t banned Scott from riding to work – so we don’t think it’s the distance or lack of a decent route that’s the issue. And I am sure Scott would offer to ride along with Denis in their own little bike train, if that would make the difference; we can be flexible with Scott’s hours, Mr. President.

Along with our colleagues at the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, we’re sure the cycling community can come up with the Top Ten Reasons Why Denis Should Be Allowed to Ride His Bike to Work…

• the fitness of his security detail will set a new standard for the entire White House
• he’ll never get stuck in traffic in times of emergency
• there’s always plenty of bike parking space on the White House railings
• he’ll never have to leave a critical security briefing “becasue my carpool is leaving now”
• didn’t you sign an Executive Order on Sustainability that encourages this sort of thing?

Help us round out the top ten by posting in the comments below or sharing your ideas on Twitter using the hashtag #letdenisride.

Andy Clarke
League President

Andy Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director. Before joining the League in February 2003, Clarke was on contract to provide technical assistance to the highly regarded Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center on site at the Federal Highway Administration. He is on the Board of Directors for America Bikes, and a member of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.

Since coming to the League in August, I’ve reviewed more than 2,000 laws related to bicycling. From planning and taxation to funding and traffic, I dusted off and dug in to statutes and administrative codes in each and every state. By researching those primary sources and tapping into great resources compiled by bicycling organizations and agencies, I was able to pull together a comprehensive database of laws.

The first product of this research: State-specific highlights of traffic laws that affect bicyclists.

There are plenty of laws shared by all states; and plenty of laws that are intuitive for both bicyclists and other road users. Our highlights focus on eleven categories of laws that most states have, but differ in ways that can have important impacts on bicyclists and other road users.

These highlights are meant to help bicyclists go beyond knowing the rules of the road and understand the laws that are significant to bike advocacy efforts. While not comprehensive, they provide easy access to the laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia and are supplemented by updated links to comprehensive state and local advocate legal resources.

Throughout my research I found incredible lawyers, legislators, and bike advocates working hard to make sure the law works for bicyclists. Now that we have a large data set regarding laws for bicyclists throughout the country, we will not only be a hub for best practices but work with you to get model, bike-friendly legislation passed in your state. By combining the passion and knowledge of the legal and bicycling community, we hope to not only ensure that you know your rights and responsibilities on the road – but that laws contribute to making biking better.

Look forward to more blog posts highlighting advocate-backed legal innovations and discussing legal issues soon. In the meantime, see how your state stacks up at bikeleague.org/bikelaws.

Photo: League Cycling Instructor training in Portland, Maine, by Jeff Scher

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

Since coming to the League in August, I’ve reviewed more than 2,000 laws related to bicycling. From planning and taxation to funding and traffic, I dusted off and dug in to statutes and administrative codes in each and every state. By researching those primary sources and tapping into great resources compiled by bicycling organizations and agencies, I was able to pull together a comprehensive database of laws. Click here to view bike laws in your state.

So, while we’re all fans of the Bikeyface cartoon, I was particularly excited to see a recent post that does a great job of giving context to traffic laws.

Bicycles are generally vehicles that travel at a lower speed than other traffic and are required to ride as far to the right of the road as practicable. This cartoon illustrates some of the many exceptions to this general requirement:

• 40 states + Washington, D.C. have an exception for a left turn
• 49 states + D.C. have an exception for passing
• 36 states have an exception for avoiding obstacles, hazards or other road conditions (such as the door zone, mythical sea monsters, and slightly less than grand canyons)

Bike lanes can complicate the rules for sharing the road. Bicycles are generally not required to use bike lanes where they are provided and there are usually limitations when they are required. Only eight states require bicyclists to use bike lanes:

• 3 of those states do not allow any exceptions to the rule
• 4 of those states allow exceptions for all of the reasons mentioned above
• 1 state only allows an exception to avoid hazards

Cars generally must not stop in roadways and often are specifically prohibited from parking on the roadway side of parked vehicles or parking in a bicycle lane.

• 49 states + D.C. have a law that prohibits stopping in roadways
• The one state that lacks a statewide law enables local jurisdictions to make such laws

All states have some version of a safe passing law, requiring bicycles to be passed at a safe distance. In 21 states, a minimum distance of three feet is defined to be at least presumptively safe. Just because a state does not define a minimum safe passing distance does not change what is safe and all road users should share the road accordingly.

In addition to the general rule to ride right and the exceptions mentioned in the previous cartoon, in 28 states a bicyclist can use the full lane when the lane is too narrow to accommodate both a car and a bicycle. Regardless of whether a bicyclist is entitled to take the lane a car will still be governed by a safe passing law, preventing passes on narrow lanes as shown above.

These are great cartoons for spreading awareness about the traffic laws that affect bicyclists and drivers of motor vehicles. For better or worse, there is a great variety amongst states in the laws that govern this relationship as both parties attempt to share the road, which can lead to confusion and conflict. Greater awareness of the law by both parties should alleviate some of those issues and creative presentations like Bikeyface are shedding light on what can be a confusing issue.

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.