Monthly Archives: March 2021

Idaho Cycling Stops and Kentucky Law on Cyclists at Intersections

Posted by Chris Carville On March 26, 2021 at 9:00 am | Comments Closed

Many Cyclists and Cycling Advocates are big fans of Idaho Stops.  I know I am.  Currently, at least six states have “legalized” Idaho Stops: Idaho, being the first in 1982, as well as Arkansas, Colorado (on an opt-in basis), Delaware, Oregon, and Washington.  California, Colorado (on a statewide basis), New York, Utah, and Virginia have proposed passing Idaho Stop legislation in 2021.

Delaware’s “Idaho Stop” legislation entitled Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act was enacted on November 1, 2014.  The legislation is unique as the original bill contained a “sunset provision” which provided that the law would “sunset” or terminate if not renewed.  Well, the sun is descending toward the horizon line.  An amendment in the form of House Bill 36 proposes making the Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act permanent is pending on the floor of the Delaware Legislature.

As a nonresident of the fine state of Delaware, all of this came to my attention as the Kentucky Bike Lawyer via my Google Alerts which got me thinking about Idaho Stops in Kentucky.

Idaho Stops can be divisive between motorists and cyclists, so they are back in the news in Delaware with strong feelings on both sides of the debate.  On the one hand, uniform laws should encourage uniformity among all users of the roadways and therefore safety should follow.  On the other hand, cyclists will report that while uniformity in the use of the roadways is a noble goal, predictability at intersections does not necessarily follow.  A lack of predictability makes intersections particularly dangerous for cyclists.

Let’s face it, at intersections cyclists are often treated as a hybrid of motorist and pedestrian.  In most localities pedestrians are not held to the same traffic rules as motorists and that may further confound a motorist’s understanding of the “rules of the road.”  Most motorist-cyclist intersection interactions, in the best-case scenarios, are fraught with confusion:

A motorist with right-of-way may yield despite arriving at the intersection first just to avoid the potential for a crash. 

A motorist without right-of-way may incorrectly interpret eye contact with the cyclist as permission to proceed.

A cyclist without right-of-way may also incorrectly interpret eye contact with a motorist as permission to proceed.

A motorist may not come to a complete stop when making a right turn and collide with a cyclist proceeding with his or her right-of-way.

A cyclist may just blow a downhill stop sign with painful results – I have seen it myself on a group ride.

The permutations can go on.  All it takes is one first person experience to harden a person’s belief system for a lifetime.

Idaho as Model Legislation

Title 49, Chapter 7 of the Idaho Code states:

Idaho Code 49-720.

The most important language in this legislation requires that a cyclist “approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection[.]”  The legislation further requires the cyclist to “yield right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching  . . . so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard[.]”  Simply stated, an “Idaho Stop” permits a cyclist “to roll” an intersection provided no other vehicles are in the intersection or approaching the intersection.  More simply stated, a cyclist needs to exercise common sense when deciding “to roll” a stop sign-controlled intersection.

“Follow the Science”

Our friends at Bike Delaware are encouraging voters to follow the science, to borrow a recent turn of phrase.  Bicycle crashes at Stop Sign Intersections have been down a whopping 23% in Delaware since the Bicycle Friendly Delaware Act was enacted.  Fortunately, all other crashes involving bicycles were also down during that 30-month period, but by only 8%.  23% versus 8% is statistically significant, even for this simple country lawyer.

One of the first, most influential, and oft-cited studies of the “Idaho Law” was penned by Jason M. Meggs in 2010.  That study was entitled Bicycle Safety and Choice: Compounding Public Cobenefits of the Idaho Law Relaxing Stop Requirements for Cycling.  As of 2010, Idaho had been a real-world test case for relaxing stopping rules for bicyclists at intersections.  Meggs reviewed several studies.  Comparisons of Boise, Idaho to comparable cities found Boise to be safer for cyclists.  For example, when compared to Sacramento, California bicycle safety fared 30.4% better in Boise on the low end and 60.6% better on the high end.  Within the State of Idaho, bicycle injury rates in the state declined by a substantial 14.5%, with no change in the number of cycling fatalities the year following the enactment of the Idaho Law.

A Little Common Sense

Cycling Advocates have done, and continue to do, their homework on increased safety at stop sign intersections as a result of Idaho Stop Laws.  I would like to see the numbers from “Motorist Advocates” (is there such a group?) that demonstrate that Idaho Stop Laws have increased the number of injuries to motorists who collide with  cyclists at an intersection (regardless of fault) in Idaho (we are approaching 40 years since the enactment of the Idaho Law) or in their state.

In this age of inexpensive digital cameras and accessible public records, opponents of the Idaho Law could easily cobble together statistics on motorists injured because of collisions with cyclists at stop sign-controlled intersections.  Why don’t they?  Common sense would dictate that a motorist encased in a quarter ton of steel usually fares better than a cyclist on a 15-to-25-pound bicycle with nothing more than a jersey or jacket on his or her back.  But I am willing to be convinced by the science if it is out there.

Idaho Stops in Kentucky

The Delaware kerfuffle got me thinking about Kentucky’s Revised Statutes and Administrative Code on Idaho Stops.  Kentucky is definitely not on the list of the BIG SIX: Idaho, Arkansas, Colorado (on an opt-in basis), Delaware (for now), Oregon, and Washington.

Kentucky’s Administrative Code does permit a type of Idaho Stop: “[a] bicyclist operating on a highway or highway shoulder may proceed after stopping and if safe against a red light if a traffic signal fails to detect the bicycle.” See, 601 KAR 14:020 Section 7(5).  Note that this is an administrative regulation, not a full-blown bill passed into law.  This regulation is not written in the vein of the original Idaho Law, which contemplates a cyclist “approaching a stop sign [who] shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection[.]” Idaho Code 49-720.  It contemplates a full stop and a light that fails to detect a cyclist before a cyclist is permitted to proceed through the intersection.

As an administrative regulation, 601 KAR 14:020 Section 7(5) is also arguably subordinate to any local or municipal ordinances on point.  KRS 189.287 is the statute that gives the Department of Transportation the authority to pass regulations like 601 KAR 14:020 Section 7(5).  KRS 189.287 contains a caveat which states: “Bicycles and riders which comply with the regulations promulgated under this section are exempt from municipal and other local government regulations concerning safety equipment but not method of operation.”

So the short answer is that a true “Idaho Stop” remains illegal in Kentucky but a cyclist can proceed against a red light (1) provided he or she comes to a complete stop and the light was not triggered and (2) provided there is not a local ordinance on point regulating a cyclist’s use of an intersection.

If you have any questions about the Idaho Law in general or Kentucky Law as applied to cyclists, you can reach the author at [email protected]

 

Excuse Me For Impeding – Differing Laws for Ohio and Kentucky Cyclists

Posted by Chris Carville On March 12, 2021 at 10:15 am | Comments Closed

So, if a Cyclist has the right to ride in the roadway and a right to ride two-abreast, does he or she have a right to impede traffic?

In Ohio…

In Ohio, you are not impeding traffic presuming that you are operating your bicycle at or near its maximum speed.

In Ohio, R.C. 4511.22 states:

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

“Vehicles” are broadly defined in Ohio.  Pursuant to R.C. 4501.01(A), a “vehicle means everything on wheels or runners, including motorized bicycles, but does not mean electric personal assistive mobility devices, vehicles that are operated exclusively on rails or tracks or from overhead electric trolley wires, and vehicles that belong to any police department, municipal fire department, or volunteer fire department, or that are used by such a department in the discharge of its functions.”

Bicycles are defined by R.C. 4501.01(K) as “every device, other than a device that is designed solely for use as a play vehicle by a child, that is propelled solely by human power upon which a person may ride, and that has two or more wheels, any of which is more than fourteen inches in diameter.”

Given the broad definition of “vehicle” in R.C. 4511.22, a Cyclist “operating a vehicle [including a bicycle]” who travels at “an unreasonably slow speed” could be guilty of “imped[ing] or block[ing] the normal and reasonable movement of traffic[.]”  Measured against a motor vehicle, virtually any nonprofessional cyclist would be operating his or her bicycle at an unreasonably slow speed could impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.  Steven O. Selz was charged with just such an offense by the City of Trotwood.  Mr. Selz was accused of violating Section 333.04(a) of the Trotwood Municipal Code, which provided (similar to R.C. 4511.22):

No person shall stop or operate a vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with [the] law.

Mr. Selz was convicted of this offense in Traffic Court.  Fortunately for Mr. Selz and Cyclists in Ohio, he was capably represented by my friend and colleague, Steve Magas.  Section 333.04(a) of the Trotwood Municipal Code could not be fairly read to prohibit any bicycle on an Ohio roadway.  Steve argued, with success, that Mr. Selz was operating his “vehicle” (also known as a bicycle) at the maximum speed at which he could possibly operate his bicycle – 15 mph uphill!

Steve analogized Mr. Selz’s operation of his bicycle to that of an operator of a corn combine in a prior case, where that court found: “The corn combine, was traveling at or near its highest possible speed. To permit the jury to impose liability on the basis of the speed of the combine would be tantamount to a holding that the operation of farm machinery such as appellants’ on the public roadway typically constitutes negligence per se. We cannot endorse such a holding. Title 68A [of the Georgia Code] does not exclude farm machinery from the public roads.”

Trotwood v Selz was decided in 2000.  Two years later, pursuant to Senate Bill 123, R.C. 4511.22 was amended to include Subsection (C) which now includes language very similar to the Second District’s Holding in Trotwood v Selz:

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.

So the moral of the story in Ohio is that a Cyclist will not be impeding traffic if he or she is operating their bicycle at the upper end of their capabilities, which may beg the question of what that particular Cyclist’s capabilities were in the first instance.  A professional cyclist’s “capabilities” going uphill on a roadway will be much different than a weekend warrior’s capabilities.  These are arguments that may fall on deaf ears as you are issued a citation by a police officer but may find a receptive ear by a municipal or state court judge or a jury of your peers if that matter goes that far in the justice system.

In Kentucky…

Kentucky Cyclists do not face similar exposure to criminal convictions.

In Kentucky, KRS 189.390(7) states:

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that will impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

The difference, like the devil, is in the detail.  KRS 189.390(7) is limited to motor vehicles.

Like Ohio, vehicles are broadly defined in Kentucky.  A bicycle will be considered a “vehicle” under the Kentucky Revised Statutes as a bicycle is an “agency” for ”the transportation of persons over or upon the public highways of the Commonwealth.”

KRS 189.010(19)(a) defines a “vehicle” as including:

1. All agencies for the transportation of persons or property over or upon the public highways of the Commonwealth; and

2. All vehicles passing over or upon the highways.

Bicycles are specifically exempted from “slow vehicle” signage in Kentucky. A bicycle does not have to display a slow-moving vehicle emblem that is required of other “slow-moving vehicles.”

KRS 189.830 states as follows:

(1) The slow-moving vehicle emblem shall be restricted to the uses specified herein and the use on any other type of vehicle or on other objects is prohibited.

* * *
(5) The slow-moving vehicle emblem shall not be used on a bicycle.

So the short answer to the pending impeding question is: Cyclists in Ohio are broadly defined as vehicle operators and may be subject to prosecution for impeding traffic, but a good lawyer should be able to “get you off” (because you were innocent in the first instance) pursuant to Trotwood v Selz (2000 2nd Dist.), 139 Ohio App.3d 947 and subsection C of R.C. 4511.22 arguing that you were pedaling within your “capabilities”; and Cyclists in Kentucky should not be charged in the first instance because the impeding traffic statute, KRS 189.390(7), is narrowly limited to motor vehicles, not all vehicles.

Three Foot Law Protection for Cyclist in Ohio and Kentucky – Part 2 of 2

Posted by Chris Carville On March 1, 2021 at 8:00 am | Comments Closed

This Blog Article follows my February 15, 2021 Article on Three Foot Law Protections for Cyclist in Ohio and Kentucky.  The February 15, 2021 Article discussed Ohio’s Three Foot Law.  This Article discusses Kentucky’s Three Foot Law.

KRS 189.340 (2) states:

(a) Vehicles overtaking a bicycle or electric low-speed scooter proceeding in the same direction shall:

    1. If there is more than one (1) lane for traffic proceeding in the same direction, move the vehicle to the immediate left, if the lane is available and moving in the lane is reasonably safe; or
    2. If there is only one (1) lane for traffic proceeding in the same direction, pass to the left of the bicycle or electric low-speed scooter at a distance of not less than three (3) feet between any portion of the vehicle and the bicycle or electric low-speed scooter and maintain that distance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or electric low-speed scooter. If space on the roadway is not available to have a minimum distance of three (3) feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or electric low-speed scooter, then the driver of the passing vehicle shall use reasonable caution in passing the bicyclist or electric low-speed scooter operator.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle may drive to the left of the center of a roadway, including when a no-passing zone is marked in accordance with subsection (6) of this section, to pass a person operating a bicycle or electric low-speed scooter only if the roadway to the left of the center is unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit the driver to pass the person operating the bicycle or electric low-speed scooter safely and avoid interference with oncoming traffic. This paragraph does not authorize driving on the left side of the center of the roadway when otherwise prohibited under state law.

Unlike Ohio’s Revised Code 4511.27, Kentucky’s Three Foot Law includes a very clear prohibition on overtaking or passing a cyclist: “Vehicles overtaking a bicycle . . . proceeding in the same direction shall: . . .  If there is only one lane for traffic proceeding in the same direction, pass to the left of the bicycle . . . at a distance of not less than three feet between any portion of the vehicle and the bicycle or electric low-speed scooter and maintain that distance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or electric low-speed scooter.”

Simple and straightforward, right?  Yep.  Whether in traffic court or a civil suit arising from an injured or killed cyclist, the minium standard is three feet, period.  End of story.  A motorist is prohibited from passing a cyclist any closer than three feet.

In this era of GoPros and Cycliq’s Fly12 (front facing light and camera) and Fly6 (rear facing light and camera) many crashes and close calls are caught on film.  These devices allow cyclists to document without question the manner in which the illegal pass took place, and unfortunately, how the vehicle-bicycle crashes occurred.

Cycliq’s website catalogues what remains a scourge on roads worldwide.  This Cycliq Video entitled CLOSE PASS-APALOOZA will send shivers down your spine:

Perhaps it is my skeptical view of the world or my bias born of decades of experience in Kentucky and Ohio Courtrooms, but it is my view that litigants are not always as accurate as they could be (I am being charitable) or just plain misrepresent (you know where I am going) the moments leading up to a crash.  A GoPro camera or Cycliq camera can often take all the speculation out of these events for a judge or jury.  Simply stated, they are worth the extra money.  Unfortunately, these cameras do not prevent crashes, but they can document them creating invaluable real-time evidence.

Unlike Ohio, Kentucky does not have an AFRAP statute like Ohio’s Revised Code 4511.55 specifically addressing cyclist.

So, the question of where the cyclist is riding is of paramount importance.  A strict reading of KRS 189.340(2)(a) would require a three foot buffer under all conditions when passing or overtaking a cyclist.  Although untested, there is an argument that if the cyclist did not have a right to be on the roadway in the first instance, then KRS 189.340(2)(a) might not apply.  If there is a crash with injuries or death as a cyclist is overtaken and struck by a motorist, the motorist may argue contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist for riding in an area where he or she did not have a legally protected right to ride.

For example, a cyclist is prohibited from riding in a roadway where there is a “designated bike lane” in Kentucky.  This is a strict prohibition.  601 KAR 14:020 Section 7 states as follows:

Section 7. Operation of Bicycles. (1) A bicycle shall be operated in the same manner as a motor vehicle, except that the traffic conditions established in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall apply.

(a) A bicycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway unless prohibited by law or ordinance.

(b) If a highway lane is marked for the exclusive use of bicycles, the operator of a bicycle shall use the lane unless:

    1. Travelling at the legal speed;
    2. Preparing for or executing a left turn;
    3. Passing a slower moving vehicle;
    4. Avoiding a hazard;
    5. Avoiding the door zone of a parked vehicle; or
    6. Approaching a driveway or intersection where vehicles are permitted to turn right from a lane to the left of the bicycle lane.

Simply stated, unless one of the six exceptions in Section 7(b) apply, if there is a highway lane “marked for the exclusive use of bicycles, the operator of a bicycle shall use [that] lane[.]”  601 KAR 14:020 Section 7 makes the use of bike lanes on a highway mandatory.

Similarly, a cyclist is prohibited from riding within the right-of-way of a “fully controlled access highway.” 603 KAR 5:025 Section 4 states:

Section 4. Limitations. The following shall be prohibited within the right-of-way of a fully controlled access highway:

(1) Bicycles or motor scooters[.]

However, a cyclist is specifically permitted to ride within a shoulder of a highway.  601 KAR 14:020 sets forth permissive “may” language in Section 7(1)(a) with regard to the use of a highway’s shoulder:

(1) A bicycle shall be operated in the same manner as a motor vehicle, except that the traffic conditions established in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall apply.

(a) A bicycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway unless prohibited by law or ordinance.

I would contend that so long as the foregoing prohibitions (use of available “designated bike lane” and nonuse of right-of-way of a “fully controlled access highway”) are not at issue and the cyclist, at worst, is in the shoulder of a highway/roadway, Kentucky’s protective three foot buffer would apply.

Cycling accidents that occur as a result of a motorist passing or overtaking a cyclist are fraught with peril.  If you are the victim of such an accident, do not hesitate to reach out to Chris at Carville Legal Counsel, LLC.  We offer FREE consultations. Chris can be reached at [email protected] or 513 600 8432.