NC Bike law change

Weird,

the system double-posted .... edit'ed to remove the duplicated comments.

Good morning.  I am writing to you today to voice my opinion regarding the amendment of GS 20-171.3, regarding the operation of bicycles on the public roadway. 

I am a 37 year-old college-educated, locally-employed, 12-year resident of Apex, and I am also a cyclist, runner, and triathlete.  I exercise and train on the streets, sidewalks, greenways, trails, and roadways of Apex, as well as greater Wake, Harnett, and Lee Counties.  In all my time cycling (for the last 7 years in Apex), I normally ride with a core group of no more than 8 other cyclists (when I’m not riding alone, which I do 75% of the time).  We are safe, courteous, and normally ride no more than 2-abreast (most times single file).  I have participated in group charity rides of well over 500 people, as well as group recreational rides in the 20-40 cyclist range, that normally are 2-abreast at maximum.  What does happen on occasion is that the person (or people) at the front of the group get tired, and need to fall back into the pack to rest.  When this happens, the normally 2-abreast line of cyclists momentarily becomes 3 or even 4-abreast (until the lead cyclists reach the end of the line). 

I consider myself a very safe cyclist (I am married with 2 young children, and am the primary bread-winner for my family), and I cycle because it is fun, it keeps me healthy, and it allows for a great stress relief from everyday work pressures.  Legislation that makes this past-time (and part of a healthy way of life) unsafe for me and a large number of my friends makes me want to take action.

The proposed amendment reads:

SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a
new section to read:
"§ 20-171.3. Operation of bicycles on streets and highways. Bicyclists
riding bicycles upon a street or highway shall not ride more than two
abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the
exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede
the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway,
shall ride within a single lane. Persons riding two abreast shall move
into a single file formation as quickly as is practicable when being
overtaken from the rear by a faster moving vehicle..

In short, I believe this amendment will further escalate tensions between motorists and road cyclists (both parties already with bad habits on the roadways), and will lead to an increase in injuries and fatalities suffered by cyclists.  Current legislation allows for some “courtesy” to exist between cyclists and motorists. 

What this amendment will do is this (copying some text from a more-eloquent friend):

It makes it illegal for cyclists to:

- ride more than two abreast, even temporarily (like dropping off the front of an already two-abreast ride) and even if the road is totally empty,

- ride more than one abreast when there is faster car traffic on the road.  If you're on the front of a two-abreast ride, you're there for good, and if fast

cyclists encounter slow cyclists, they *can't* pass, so that cars *can*

- "impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic," thereby letting us know what the bill's authors think of bike traffic -- we're

unnormal and unreasonable

For the first time *ever* in NC vehicle law, the amendment would:

-       create a special sub-class of vehicle users, namely cyclists, with more limited rights than other classes.  The rest of the vehicle code treats all road users the same, with the same rights and responsibilities.

-       revoke cyclists' rights to the full lane when needed, with no qualifications mentioned for safety, lane conditions, whether we're about to take a left turn, or any of the other nuances in similar parts of the vehicle code.

-       place the responsibility to ensure that a pass is safe on the overtaken vehicle (the cyclist) rather than the overtaking one

-       penalize vehicle operators (cyclists) for their behavior as a group rather than individuals: cars aren't required to make sure that other cars follow the speed limits, but cyclists would be required to make sure that other riders move over, or the entire group is punished

Some of the things the amendment outlines are, indeed, examples of good road courtesy on the part of cyclists, but there's a reason we don't usually try to legislate courtesy -- legislation is too heavy-handed a tool for this application.  What we're really seeing, it seems to me, is an ignorance on behalf of the bill's author (a retired auto dealer) to acknowledge that two- or even three-abreast often *is* the safest and easiest way -- for cars as well as cyclists -- to co-exist on the road.  Instead of trying to understand that by entering into the cyclists' position on the road, they're trying to legislate us off the road.

I welcome any discussion you would like to have regarding this amendment, and road-cycling in general.  While I agree that both cyclists and motorists can stand to improve their road manners towards each other, I do not believe the proposed amendment is the solution.

Thank you for your time.

Got these replies:

This bill received considerable discussion in the Transportation Oversight Committee. It will have a difficult time in the House, based on the questions and comments.

I will not support it.

Richard Stevens

and:

You make some good points.  Thanks. Rep Paul Stam, Apex

That is pretty impressive that you actually got a response back and they actually listened!

Cole added that drivers pay for roads, not cyclists.

"Bicyclists are not licensed," Cole said. "Bicycles have no fees, no registration attached to them. I think they should be a little more considerate of the people that are driving."

I am pretty sure I spend a load of tax money for my two cars that I own.