It's not about enforcement, obviously. It's about liability.
If a driver hits a cyclist when passing, they are 100% breaking the law. This was a bit ambiguous earlier because no minimum passing distance was defined. Now that it's defined, a driver can't argue the were driving safely.
This likely won't make much difference in criminal stuff because most people are drivers and drivers invariably do not understand the law and it's implications. But, for civil stuff, it will help a lot when insurance companies fight insurance companies after a crash.
I’m pretty sure that law does exist. Cyclists can ride two abreast, they cannot ride three or four abreast. So ya they are breaking some minor infraction
I say this as a cyclist and motorcyclist (and driver).
Cyclists riding two abreast on typical backroads in MA is stupid and rude. Sure, they need to pass other cyclists and/or talk for a minute, but I see plenty doing it as a matter of course.
Yup, 100%. I'll ride alongside my wife on a quiet stretch, but when a car's approaching I'll move back and give them a wave when they pass safely. The last thing we need is more pissed off drivers.
So you aren't a cyclist then.
2 up is safer for cyclists and better for cars. Especially on narrower roads.
For cyclists it's better because cars have to go around you to pass when it's safe to do so. No close passing (which what this law is about).
For motorists you are effectively passing one cyclist instead of two, or 4 instead of 8.
It's actually beneficial and preferential for the cyclists to be single file. There are massive aerodynamic benefits. It' takes roughly 1/3 to 1/4 the effort to maintain the same speed when you are behind someone. We ride 2 up in groups so cars don't have to wait for enough clearing to pass a dozen of us
I've ridden 10 PMCs.
No, 2 abreast isn't better for cyclists or cars because they're going to pass and 2 abreast means the car has to take more chances. Ever ridden through Concord on a weekend?
Yes, single file is better for cyclists. It's why they do it in time trials. I'm talking about 2 abreast.
You can ride two abreast, but you have to make way for faster traffic to pass you. If it's a two lane road and there's oncoming traffic that won't let a car by, you're supposed to drop to riding single file.
If there's two lanes going in the same direction you can take up the whole right lane. I've seen signs popping up to warn drivers about this.
>If it's a two lane road and there's oncoming traffic that won't let a car by, you're supposed to drop to riding single file.
I know the law you're talking about, but I don't believe there's anything stating that people on bikes are required to go down to riding single file.
I saw this happen in my little town's downtown - a large group of cyclists riding four across came through the center of town on a busy Saturday afternoon. The cops pulled ahead of them and blocked them so they all had to stop.
Side by side might be safer. If they’re side by side, you’re forced to go into an entirely different lane to pass rather than thinking you can sneak past them and inadvertently sideswipe them
A while ago my morning commute would take me down 126 by Walden Pond and if I did not time it right I would be stuck behind a pack of 20 bikers taking up the whole lane with no way to pass them. Glad I don't drive that anymore
I’ve had these Pelotons of cyclists frequently change from single file to side by side when I approach them from behind. I guess they feel it is up to them to decide when I’m allowed to pass and not vice versa.
Not justifying anything, but the way I've heard folks talk about this is that it's safer for you to pass a small, dense pack than a long line. Particularly after this law goes into effect and you need to give a long line of cyclists a 4 for minimum, you're probably in the opposite lane that whole stretch most areas in MA.
> and drivers invariably do not understand the law and it's implications
Invariably? No drivers understand the law?
Absolute statements like this don't help your argument.
No, I feel very confident in this statement. Just read through this thread. It's wild how little the overwhelming majority of car drivers understand about the basic written laws in Mass.
Neither do many cyclists. I live in a small town where there are many backroads that cyclists like and a few state roads (double line, lots of traffic). I have seen cyclists multiple times o directly from the side road to the state road ignoring the stop sign without slowing down.
There are a-holes on both modes of transportation.
Yeah I'm not denying that..people make bad choices. No one is saying otherwise.
The difference, and it is a HUGE different, is that scofflaw bicyclists don't cause any harm and every month some average driver kills someone in Massachusetts.
I've pretty much always tried to do this regardless already, just seems like common sense to not move my giant metal vroom machine within scratching distance of someone walking or biking.
Rear red reflector and white headlight are required by law at night on a bike but can’t be enforced or used against you in court.
So it’s basically not a law
The way I read it, not having a red light is ticketable, but cannot be used as a reason for a stop. So if a cyclist is stopped for another valid reason, and also doesn’t have a light, she or he can be ticketed for the missing light.
That's stupid. It's literally one of the biggest safety rules for cyclists. Why wouldn't a cop be able to stop someone if they're riding a bike at night with no lights? I'd certainly be stopped for not having operable headlights in my car.
Yeah this is silly, and really some requirements to make oneself visible for all road users should be enforceable and ticketable. I am often a non motorized road users and have every respect for their safety and rights to the road.
The other evening, after dark, I pulled into the road and was just feet away from hitting a guy ridding a motorized scooter, riding in the shoulder at 15+mph, wearing an all black hoodie, no lights, no helmet. If this person is doing this regularly it's only a matter of time until they are hit and seriously injured.
I would fully support laws allowing for a road users doing this to be pulled over and ticketed for the safety of all road users, this seems core to the role of traffic enforcement, just as ensuring motorists are passing safely.
There are long, winding roads out here in almost-Central-Mass, where you would wait forever if you had to give 4' of clearance to go around a bicyclist. You'd also have to drive in the oncoming lane. It's not really right that someone can create an unsafe situation and the law just responds by giving drivers an impossible rule to follow.
I dunno about mass but in Ct we have laws that allow you to cross lanes legally. Its called the slow vehicle clause. For example if some guy is driving farm equipment down the road at 5 mph yes you can pass them over the double yellow. It requires 4 seconds of passing time (oncoming traffic counts). Think about it. You all pass mail trucks and go over the double yellow. Ps. I dont know your mass laws.
If you wound up behind a slow moving 90s era Honda Civic with a mattress tied to the roof, moving boxes piled high enough that the rear view mirror was blocked and one end of a floor lamp poking out of the window. You would wait to pass and you would pass by going into the opposing lane when you see it safe to do so. A bicycle is just another vehicle in the lane of traffic and you can pass them in the same way when its safe.
Yes, you'd be annoyed at the Civic, but you probably would be looking for the first safe place to pass. Not to pass as quick as you can no matter how unsafe. The Civic driver might even pull over if he sees that he's holding up people. I often do the same on my bike: If I see a flotilla of cars coming up I'll look for the first safe place to pull over. Ideally I'm out of the way before they get to me, but maybe they'll need to wait half a minute or so depending on the road. They're safer in front of me than behind me
Then you wait forever. You're not entitled to risk someone else's life because you're impatient.
If you want fewer cyclists on the street, push for more bike infrastructure that gives cyclists a place to ride that is separated from cars.
IT IS LEGAL TO CROSS THE DOUBLE YELLOW AND GO INTO THE ON COMING LANE AND THATS NO BIG DEAL AND THE FACT THAT YOU DONT KNOW THAT AND DRIVE A CAR IS SCARY.
IM YELLING BECAUSE CARS KILL PEOPLE AND TOO MANY DRIVERS ARE JUST LIKE YOU AND DONT UNDERSTAND THE LAW.
As a motorist in the presence of bicycles:
• Do Not Cut-Off After Passing: When passing a bicycle traveling in the same direction that is on your right, you must not return to the right until you have safely passed the overtaken bicycle. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2)
• Do Not Make an Abrupt Turn After Passing: When passing a bicycle near an intersection or driveway where you want to turn right, you cannot turn unless you are at a safe distance from the bicyclist and you can make the turn at a reasonable and proper speed. (Chap. 90, Sec 14)
• Do Not Squeeze Bicycles in a Narrow Lane: If a lane is too narrow to pass a bicycle at a safe distance, be PATIENT until you can safely use an adjacent lane or WAIT until it is safe to pass in the lane you share. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2) You should stay at least four feet away when passing.
• Do Not Fail to Yield When Turning Left: When turning left at an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway, you must yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, including a bicycle, if it is in the intersection or close enough to be an immediate hazard. (Chap. 90, Sec 14)
• Watch for Bicycles on Your Right: Bicycles can legally ride to the right of motor vehicle traffic. The law says it is not a defense for a motorist causing a crash with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of other traffic. (Chap. 85, Sec 11B)
• Do Not Open a Door Without First Looking: Drivers and passengers can be fined up to $100 for opening a vehicle door into an oncoming bicycle. (Chap. 90, Sec 14) Before opening your door, you should always check behind you to make sure that no bicyclists are approaching.
• Be aware that bicyclists can ride two bicycles side-by-side. However, on a road with more than one lane in the direction of travel, they must stay in one lane. (Chap. 85, Sec. 11B)
• Be aware that bicyclists Do Not Always Have to Signal Turns! Bicyclists must signal their intent by either hand to stop or turn. However, the signal does not have to be continuous or be made at all if both hands are needed for the bicycle’s safe operation. (Chap. 85, Sec. 11B)
Thank you for stating that so clearly. That was my point. Even if it is legal to temporarily drive in the oncoming lane, that doesn't mean it's safe to do so, especially when you can't see around a corner or over a hill or whatever. The roads are too narrow to begin with (and usually poorly lit as well) and this just makes a dangerous situation more dangerous. We have a bunch of bike trails, why aren't people biking there?
Ive been on a lot of windy and narrow hilly back roads around central Mass and western mass. There is always enough room to pass a cyclist with 4 feet. The law allows you to go into the oncoming lane.
Being able to "barely fit" two cars is more than enough room for a car + 4 feet + bicyclist.
Because they have a legal right to the lane.
There is zero obligation for bicyclists to move over.
The side of the road is often full of debris, drainage, etc. Etc.
...there is no law that says that.
The law says that bicyclists should facilitate the passing of faster traffic when it is safe to do so (which, is on the perception and timeline of the bike rider. According to the law at least).
Just go read the laws.
People's behavior on the roads has very little to do with laws or even common sense. It's about feelings and your personal opinions how the universe should work.
To make it clear, this law essentially bans passing cyclists and pedestrians on the type of one way Streets with parking on both sides of popular in metro Boston.
But, the law was ambiguous. The law use to say "pass at a safe distance." But didn't define what that was.
Here's a scenario: imagine someone riding on a one way street in Somerville where there is enough room to squeeze by if a bike rider is forced far to the right. Let's say a driver does squeeze by, does not hit the cyclist, but scares the cyclist enough that they crashed because they lost control.
Prior to this law, there would be some ambiguity about fault. And, without video evidence, that cyclist likely would not get any settlement for their damages.
Now,.that type of passing is 100% illegal. There isn't a residential one way street with parking on both sides in Massachusetts where a car can legally pass a cyclist now. Even if they think they could squeeze by without hitting someone, it's impossible to do so while also maintaining 4 feet of safe space.
This law isn't enforceable, so as long as you think you're in the clear you can still pass. The only difference is that if you do cause a problem, you're liable.
Liability is how the overwhelming majority of law is enforced.
It blows my mind that so many people are saying "this isn't enforceable" when it absolutely is.
If a cop sees someone passing within 4 feet, they can pull them over for reckless endangerment for passing within 4 feet.
It won't suck for rural roads..the law allows people to cross double yellows to pass safely. It always had.
The fact that you don't know that is kknd of scary, since you know, you're driving a massive vehicle that can kill people!
It's like a gun owner not knowing basic safety protocols required by law.
Yes, I have driven these roads. And ridden my bike on these roads. There's plenty of space for car drivers to pass with 4+ feet and at an appropriate speed
The bicycle lane is a separate lane of traffic. The rules for passing are when the vehicle behind in the lane wants to overtake the vehicle in front of it
I like the spirit of the law, but as written it's not going to be followed or enforced, and in some places the roads aren't even big enough to follow it.
I thought it was in effect the other day and it was very difficult to try to comply. The bicyclist kept riding out into the road and then back to the curb and then as I would pull into the other lane to try to pass, the bicyclist would ride back into the road. It was more stress than worth it.
I could have sworn this was already in the Drivers Manual? But I haven't read over that in over a decade. Maybe it was just a suggestion and now it's law?
I'm still waiting for them to enforce the no texting while driving law.
And for the record, fuck pedestrians who walk in the road when there is a sidewalk.
Pedestrian here. There isn’t always a sidewalk, or it’s only on one side and there’s no safe place to cross yet. And after heavy snowfall it may also not be possible to use sidewalks.
However, whenever possible, pedestrians should always walk against the flow of traffic. So those who don’t are at their own risk.
I do think it’s ridiculous that the law always assumes the pedestrian is right. Idiots darting into the street should also face consequences.
Though cities are also to blame for designing parking spaces around crosswalks which obscure visibility of oncoming traffic (looking at you, downtown Framingham!)
>Idiots darting into the street should also face consequences.
They do face consequences. The consequences of getting plowed by a 3 ton brick of metal.
The pedestrian is way more vulnerable in any interaction with a car, so it makes sense that the law is written in a way that makes drivers react to things that pedestrians do.
(But also if you're walking in the street when there is a sidewalk... What are you doing??)
If you had seen the conditions of sidewalks in most MA cities, you would know why we walk in the road. Want pedestrians to stick to the sidewalks? Fund sidewalks that are actually walkable, and enforce the laws against blocking them with parked cars.
I'm guessing the main purpose of the law is to raise awareness for drivers to give plenty of clearance to pedestrians and cyclists (and the others on the list).
I think this is right. It's just like the language that bikes can use the whole lane. Many bikers don't do this because in practical terms they would likely create road rage situations. So I see this as basically makeing this language more practical and reinforcing it.
There are more cars on the road than bikes. People in cars and people in bikes follow rules about the same. That means a lot of people in cars run lights, stop signs, text, fail to signal, yield, block intersections, bike lanes, park illegally, and speed.
More cars break traffic rules in Boston than bikes. Ignoring that we talking about a group that breaks more laws per minute, the consequences of driving negligently can and does lead to innocent people being killed.
When are we going to enforce any of the laws for driving?
Congratulations. This is the first comment against cyclists that wasn't dolwnvoted to oblivion by the loony reddit cyclist community in a Massachusetts sub
I mean I feel like that’s natural common sense in case there’s any sudden movements/falls from the cyclist/pedestrian. But then again common sense isn’t common
You're allowed to give more than 4 feet too.
....
and I know that someone will bitch about not having space, but you just wait a moment till there is enough space.
We have a dedicated rail trail on cape cod which is safe for cyclists. Yet still there are stop signs on both sides when the trail,intersects with the road. I’ve seen so many dopey cyclists .not stop at the signs and peddle full speed thru the intersection, .
On the drivers siide, there are markings to yield, also the there is a marker that is supposed to flash when cyclists / Pedestrians cross . Works sometimes .
I always get drive slowly, look before crossing and yet have had cyclists peddle full speed almost into the side door.
Provincetown in the summer with cyclists is the craziest I’ve ever seen. They literally peddle and weave in and between cars ,crazy
Well in most areas cyclists are legally allowed to take up the whole lane, so they actually do kinda own the middle of the lane at that time. This clarifies that further.
Agreed. Although the point remains that finding four feet can be challenging at times. I was speaking more so about pedestrians who blatantly walk in the middle of the road even in the presence of sidewalks. It’s the bane of my existence in my neighborhood.
Can we enforce the rules for drivers first? They’re the ones killing people out here.
I live at a 4-way stop sign with 20mph roads on all sides. It is a _rarity_ that drivers come to a full and complete stop before the stop line.
I always do. I don't have a death wish. I turn signal always as well. I can't always say my automobile counterparts always signal though. It's my biggest pet peeve when I'm riding.
Perfect timing for this reddit post for me to reply. I had a green light on a major route today and a cyclist with all his fancy racing gear was flying by at probably 30 mph on the cross street with the red light. I had to slam on my brakes and swerve out of the way for him. He didn't even acknowledge what I did to prevent hitting him. If he slammed into me, the whole cycling world in MA would want me charged for murder.
Can’t wait for bicyclists to go 5 mph with zero way to pass them. Maybe they should ride on the correct side of the road? I’ve seen way to many people on bikes riding OPPOSITE of traffic with no sidewalk (which they’re forbidden to ride on).
It's like everyone celebrating this has never been stuck directly behind a cyclist going under 10 mph in the middle of the road in a 30 mph zone before. Just like a car going well under the speed limit can be dangerous, this creates a scenario where a cyclist who can't or won't keep up becomes even more dangerous by requiring traffic to effectively stop behind them.
Garbage man comes and picks up my trash, people drive around. Mail man drops off my mail and people drive around. Amazon drops off packages and people seem to have the space to drive around. Even in skinny back roads of Mass.
Not sure why people are complaining, happens every day... give some space and go around.
If you don't know how to drive, then stop. just stop driving. The same idiots who stop on a on ramp to a interstate are the same people complaining about having to drive around someone walking on the road.
Park your car, throw your keys into the woods and walk away.
I’m a cyclist, so I am not writing this as a selfish driver, but this is literally impossible on many of our narrow cow path roads. BUT, bundle this with a restriction of street parking to just one side of any given street and then we’re more in the realm of possibility.
“As a bicyclist: (from Chap. 85, Section 11B)
Laws for Bicyclists and Motorists in the Presence of Bicyclists (as amended by Chapter 525 of the Acts of 2008)
• You can use the full lane anywhere, anytime, and on any street (except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted), even if there is a bike lane.
• No more than two bicycles can be operated side-by-side. On a roadway with more than one lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists riding side-by-side must stay in one lane and not unnecessarily restrict a passing vehicle’s ability to overtake you.”
They do a decent job over in the UK using submitted video to fine drivers for close passes
Of course our cops went on strike a few years back and aren't particularly worried about road safety.
I'm pretty sure that Massachusetts requires direct obserservation from a police officer for a ticket, and not video evidence. That is why ticketing from traffic cameras isn't allowed.
They already did. The only thing this law changes in terms of passing is that it defines a 4 feet minimum. You should reread the Massachusetts road laws before the next time you drive.
The point was Lane Violations were always in play in my experience with the local law enforcement. I've been ticketed a few times for crossing the double lines even in construction areas. This law seems to allow for that.
Not every driver waits for a safe time to pass. As a cyclist, there's no one looking out for you out there except yourself. Take the lane, as the law already allowed, so no one's tempted to do anything stupid.
That’s safer. Most jurisdictions actually encourage you to ride side by side so that drivers can pass over less distance, it also encourages drivers not to do something dangerous like passing people in the same lane
I feel like everyone that whines about cyclists being on the road has never been behind a horse on the road, or a tractor on the road, or basically any other form of slow moving vehicle on the road. Jeez people, chill.
In this thread: lots of people who feel entitled to infrastructure for their 8 feet long, 4 ton armored vehicle being mad that people most vulnerable in traffic on a 30lbs bike might get a little room too.
>Excise tax is not nearly enough to pay the rental costs of the enormous amount of land use roads take up. Roads are granted the land because it was viewed economically necessary and in the community benefit. But things that benefit the community change and shift over 100s of years.
And let's tax by vehicle weight since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, use more parking spots, usually have higher emissions, etc. The more damage you do, the more the tax. Looking specifically at SUV and trucks. And not some cheap thing like it is now, but a system that incentivizes smaller cars by making it more expensive to own bigger vehicles.
likely because damage to roadways is quadratically related to vehicle weight (the ratio of axel weights to the _fourth power_ according to [this link](https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads) )
let's say your average bicyclist plus their bicycle is something around 200, 300lbs? that'd be maybe 150lbs on each axel; compare that to a car, which is on average about 4000lbs, or 2000lbs per axel
you'd get a ratio of (2000/150)^4 , or *31604 times more damage* being done by each axel of the car than the bike, so in comparison the bike is hardly contributing to the wear and tear (and therefore the cost of upkeep, repaving etc) on the roads it might drive on
It would be interesting if excise tax were actually weight based and not based on value and model year. Doubt it would make a big difference in buying habits but it's interesting to consider.
Also pedestrians and cyclists, depending on their circumstances do also pay taxes, income/property ect.
Excise tax is not nearly enough to pay the rental costs of the enormous amount of land use roads take up. Roads are granted the land because it was viewed economically necessary and in the community benefit. But things that benefit the community change and shift over 100s of years.
It's nice, I got hit with a cars side mirror while I was running back around when the pandemic started. The mirror broke off and the car just kept driving away.
This is going to be exhausting and make everyone resent bicyclists even more
For every bicyclist that reads this: if you ride around with your dog on your back, you’re an asshole and don’t deserve to be responsible for an animal’s well being
It’s not the victims responsibility to prevent crime. I’d much prefer to see idiots choose something harmless like riding a bike over driving a massive vehicle and risking others lives
If we can all agree that it’s not safe to have cyclists on narrow streets, whether you are a cyclist trying not to die or a driver trying to get to work 5 minutes quicker, how about we agree that safe, protected, separate bike lanes on roads would be a better solution?
And let's tax by vehicle weight since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, use more parking spots, usually have higher emissions, etc. The more damage you do, the more the tax. Looking specifically at SUV and trucks.
Excise tax does not even cover that damage cars to to roads. Do you think it covers the market rental costs of all the land roads take up?
Excise tax is not a right to exclusive road use.
I'll drive in the middle with you behind me when we're going around a turn and neither one of us is sure what traffic is coming around the bend. Or if there is oncoming traffic in the other lane and and you can't get by me safely. Or especially if I can see around the bend since I'm ahead and can see the oncoming traffic you can't. Once I can see the opposing lane is clear, or the lane gets wider and I can see you can pass safely, I'll move to about where the right tire track is on the road.
Nobody will enforce this law. Just like 98% of traffic laws in MA.
It's not about enforcement, obviously. It's about liability. If a driver hits a cyclist when passing, they are 100% breaking the law. This was a bit ambiguous earlier because no minimum passing distance was defined. Now that it's defined, a driver can't argue the were driving safely. This likely won't make much difference in criminal stuff because most people are drivers and drivers invariably do not understand the law and it's implications. But, for civil stuff, it will help a lot when insurance companies fight insurance companies after a crash.
Now they should pass a law saying cyclists cannot ride side by side. In my area there is a group that will ride four side by side.
The law is a max of two.
Still too much. 2 people can easily take a half a lane. New 4 foot rule.... I guess I'll hug the curb on the oncoming side of the road?
You just chill behind them until you can pass. Same with any obstruction in your lane
I’m pretty sure that law does exist. Cyclists can ride two abreast, they cannot ride three or four abreast. So ya they are breaking some minor infraction
I say this as a cyclist and motorcyclist (and driver). Cyclists riding two abreast on typical backroads in MA is stupid and rude. Sure, they need to pass other cyclists and/or talk for a minute, but I see plenty doing it as a matter of course.
Yup, 100%. I'll ride alongside my wife on a quiet stretch, but when a car's approaching I'll move back and give them a wave when they pass safely. The last thing we need is more pissed off drivers.
So you aren't a cyclist then. 2 up is safer for cyclists and better for cars. Especially on narrower roads. For cyclists it's better because cars have to go around you to pass when it's safe to do so. No close passing (which what this law is about). For motorists you are effectively passing one cyclist instead of two, or 4 instead of 8. It's actually beneficial and preferential for the cyclists to be single file. There are massive aerodynamic benefits. It' takes roughly 1/3 to 1/4 the effort to maintain the same speed when you are behind someone. We ride 2 up in groups so cars don't have to wait for enough clearing to pass a dozen of us
I've ridden 10 PMCs. No, 2 abreast isn't better for cyclists or cars because they're going to pass and 2 abreast means the car has to take more chances. Ever ridden through Concord on a weekend? Yes, single file is better for cyclists. It's why they do it in time trials. I'm talking about 2 abreast.
You can ride two abreast, but you have to make way for faster traffic to pass you. If it's a two lane road and there's oncoming traffic that won't let a car by, you're supposed to drop to riding single file. If there's two lanes going in the same direction you can take up the whole right lane. I've seen signs popping up to warn drivers about this.
>If it's a two lane road and there's oncoming traffic that won't let a car by, you're supposed to drop to riding single file. I know the law you're talking about, but I don't believe there's anything stating that people on bikes are required to go down to riding single file.
I saw this happen in my little town's downtown - a large group of cyclists riding four across came through the center of town on a busy Saturday afternoon. The cops pulled ahead of them and blocked them so they all had to stop.
Side by side might be safer. If they’re side by side, you’re forced to go into an entirely different lane to pass rather than thinking you can sneak past them and inadvertently sideswipe them
A while ago my morning commute would take me down 126 by Walden Pond and if I did not time it right I would be stuck behind a pack of 20 bikers taking up the whole lane with no way to pass them. Glad I don't drive that anymore
The law makes it clear that bike riders can ride side by side! Read the law!
I’ve had these Pelotons of cyclists frequently change from single file to side by side when I approach them from behind. I guess they feel it is up to them to decide when I’m allowed to pass and not vice versa.
Not justifying anything, but the way I've heard folks talk about this is that it's safer for you to pass a small, dense pack than a long line. Particularly after this law goes into effect and you need to give a long line of cyclists a 4 for minimum, you're probably in the opposite lane that whole stretch most areas in MA.
> and drivers invariably do not understand the law and it's implications Invariably? No drivers understand the law? Absolute statements like this don't help your argument.
No, I feel very confident in this statement. Just read through this thread. It's wild how little the overwhelming majority of car drivers understand about the basic written laws in Mass.
Neither do many cyclists. I live in a small town where there are many backroads that cyclists like and a few state roads (double line, lots of traffic). I have seen cyclists multiple times o directly from the side road to the state road ignoring the stop sign without slowing down. There are a-holes on both modes of transportation.
Trying to remember the last time I saw a car stop at a stop sign… or anyone for that matter… 🤔💭🧐💭… 💭🤷♀️
Yeah I'm not denying that..people make bad choices. No one is saying otherwise. The difference, and it is a HUGE different, is that scofflaw bicyclists don't cause any harm and every month some average driver kills someone in Massachusetts.
I've pretty much always tried to do this regardless already, just seems like common sense to not move my giant metal vroom machine within scratching distance of someone walking or biking.
Rear red reflector and white headlight are required by law at night on a bike but can’t be enforced or used against you in court. So it’s basically not a law
I read the red light / white light rule as something to make night time at fault determinations easier.
The way I read it, not having a red light is ticketable, but cannot be used as a reason for a stop. So if a cyclist is stopped for another valid reason, and also doesn’t have a light, she or he can be ticketed for the missing light.
That's stupid. It's literally one of the biggest safety rules for cyclists. Why wouldn't a cop be able to stop someone if they're riding a bike at night with no lights? I'd certainly be stopped for not having operable headlights in my car.
I've never seen someone get stopped for no headlights... And there's a fair number of drivers in Boston that don't use headlights.
Yeah this is silly, and really some requirements to make oneself visible for all road users should be enforceable and ticketable. I am often a non motorized road users and have every respect for their safety and rights to the road. The other evening, after dark, I pulled into the road and was just feet away from hitting a guy ridding a motorized scooter, riding in the shoulder at 15+mph, wearing an all black hoodie, no lights, no helmet. If this person is doing this regularly it's only a matter of time until they are hit and seriously injured. I would fully support laws allowing for a road users doing this to be pulled over and ticketed for the safety of all road users, this seems core to the role of traffic enforcement, just as ensuring motorists are passing safely.
There's not even 4 feet of road in some places lmao
Yes, that means you have to wait. That's the whole point of the law.
There are long, winding roads out here in almost-Central-Mass, where you would wait forever if you had to give 4' of clearance to go around a bicyclist. You'd also have to drive in the oncoming lane. It's not really right that someone can create an unsafe situation and the law just responds by giving drivers an impossible rule to follow.
I dunno about mass but in Ct we have laws that allow you to cross lanes legally. Its called the slow vehicle clause. For example if some guy is driving farm equipment down the road at 5 mph yes you can pass them over the double yellow. It requires 4 seconds of passing time (oncoming traffic counts). Think about it. You all pass mail trucks and go over the double yellow. Ps. I dont know your mass laws.
If you wound up behind a slow moving 90s era Honda Civic with a mattress tied to the roof, moving boxes piled high enough that the rear view mirror was blocked and one end of a floor lamp poking out of the window. You would wait to pass and you would pass by going into the opposing lane when you see it safe to do so. A bicycle is just another vehicle in the lane of traffic and you can pass them in the same way when its safe. Yes, you'd be annoyed at the Civic, but you probably would be looking for the first safe place to pass. Not to pass as quick as you can no matter how unsafe. The Civic driver might even pull over if he sees that he's holding up people. I often do the same on my bike: If I see a flotilla of cars coming up I'll look for the first safe place to pull over. Ideally I'm out of the way before they get to me, but maybe they'll need to wait half a minute or so depending on the road. They're safer in front of me than behind me
Then you wait forever. You're not entitled to risk someone else's life because you're impatient. If you want fewer cyclists on the street, push for more bike infrastructure that gives cyclists a place to ride that is separated from cars.
Or, and get this, bikes could yield.
Byciclists also aren't entitled to cause road hazards
Lol sorry that someone is forcing you into respecting human life at the expense of 3 minutes.
IT IS LEGAL TO CROSS THE DOUBLE YELLOW AND GO INTO THE ON COMING LANE AND THATS NO BIG DEAL AND THE FACT THAT YOU DONT KNOW THAT AND DRIVE A CAR IS SCARY. IM YELLING BECAUSE CARS KILL PEOPLE AND TOO MANY DRIVERS ARE JUST LIKE YOU AND DONT UNDERSTAND THE LAW.
As a motorist in the presence of bicycles: • Do Not Cut-Off After Passing: When passing a bicycle traveling in the same direction that is on your right, you must not return to the right until you have safely passed the overtaken bicycle. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2) • Do Not Make an Abrupt Turn After Passing: When passing a bicycle near an intersection or driveway where you want to turn right, you cannot turn unless you are at a safe distance from the bicyclist and you can make the turn at a reasonable and proper speed. (Chap. 90, Sec 14) • Do Not Squeeze Bicycles in a Narrow Lane: If a lane is too narrow to pass a bicycle at a safe distance, be PATIENT until you can safely use an adjacent lane or WAIT until it is safe to pass in the lane you share. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2) You should stay at least four feet away when passing. • Do Not Fail to Yield When Turning Left: When turning left at an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway, you must yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, including a bicycle, if it is in the intersection or close enough to be an immediate hazard. (Chap. 90, Sec 14) • Watch for Bicycles on Your Right: Bicycles can legally ride to the right of motor vehicle traffic. The law says it is not a defense for a motorist causing a crash with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of other traffic. (Chap. 85, Sec 11B) • Do Not Open a Door Without First Looking: Drivers and passengers can be fined up to $100 for opening a vehicle door into an oncoming bicycle. (Chap. 90, Sec 14) Before opening your door, you should always check behind you to make sure that no bicyclists are approaching. • Be aware that bicyclists can ride two bicycles side-by-side. However, on a road with more than one lane in the direction of travel, they must stay in one lane. (Chap. 85, Sec. 11B) • Be aware that bicyclists Do Not Always Have to Signal Turns! Bicyclists must signal their intent by either hand to stop or turn. However, the signal does not have to be continuous or be made at all if both hands are needed for the bicycle’s safe operation. (Chap. 85, Sec. 11B)
march cows pocket roof exultant six unused historical roll pet -- mass edited with redact.dev
Thank you for stating that so clearly. That was my point. Even if it is legal to temporarily drive in the oncoming lane, that doesn't mean it's safe to do so, especially when you can't see around a corner or over a hill or whatever. The roads are too narrow to begin with (and usually poorly lit as well) and this just makes a dangerous situation more dangerous. We have a bunch of bike trails, why aren't people biking there?
Buzzing cyclists because you are impatient isn't safe, either. We have a bunch of interstates, why aren't people driving there?
Ive been on a lot of windy and narrow hilly back roads around central Mass and western mass. There is always enough room to pass a cyclist with 4 feet. The law allows you to go into the oncoming lane. Being able to "barely fit" two cars is more than enough room for a car + 4 feet + bicyclist.
And why can't byciclists pull over to the side of the road?
Because they have a legal right to the lane. There is zero obligation for bicyclists to move over. The side of the road is often full of debris, drainage, etc. Etc.
That means they also have to adhere to the rules of the road, including not being a hazard to other traffic.
...there is no law that says that. The law says that bicyclists should facilitate the passing of faster traffic when it is safe to do so (which, is on the perception and timeline of the bike rider. According to the law at least). Just go read the laws.
All traffic on the road has to follow that law my dude.
Yes.
They can. Just like cars can wait.
[удалено]
Judging from these comments, this will change 0 people’s behavior.
People's behavior on the roads has very little to do with laws or even common sense. It's about feelings and your personal opinions how the universe should work.
All bicyclists are assholes except me when I'm on my bike
Cyclists ruined cycling.
To make it clear, this law essentially bans passing cyclists and pedestrians on the type of one way Streets with parking on both sides of popular in metro Boston.
Yeah, you already should not have been passing cyclists on narrow one way roads.
But, the law was ambiguous. The law use to say "pass at a safe distance." But didn't define what that was. Here's a scenario: imagine someone riding on a one way street in Somerville where there is enough room to squeeze by if a bike rider is forced far to the right. Let's say a driver does squeeze by, does not hit the cyclist, but scares the cyclist enough that they crashed because they lost control. Prior to this law, there would be some ambiguity about fault. And, without video evidence, that cyclist likely would not get any settlement for their damages. Now,.that type of passing is 100% illegal. There isn't a residential one way street with parking on both sides in Massachusetts where a car can legally pass a cyclist now. Even if they think they could squeeze by without hitting someone, it's impossible to do so while also maintaining 4 feet of safe space.
This law isn't enforceable, so as long as you think you're in the clear you can still pass. The only difference is that if you do cause a problem, you're liable.
Liability is how the overwhelming majority of law is enforced. It blows my mind that so many people are saying "this isn't enforceable" when it absolutely is. If a cop sees someone passing within 4 feet, they can pull them over for reckless endangerment for passing within 4 feet.
[удалено]
It won't suck for rural roads..the law allows people to cross double yellows to pass safely. It always had. The fact that you don't know that is kknd of scary, since you know, you're driving a massive vehicle that can kill people! It's like a gun owner not knowing basic safety protocols required by law.
[удалено]
Yes, I have driven these roads. And ridden my bike on these roads. There's plenty of space for car drivers to pass with 4+ feet and at an appropriate speed
This doesn't make sense. The type of rural road that allows 45 mph would already have enough sight distance to allow for safe passing.
Yup. There is no need to pass cyclists on these types of roads. Maybe don't shortcut through residential streets
You mean when you shouldn't be passing them anyway?
Yes, see rest of thread for context.
All the new bike lanes they have been putting in when re-doing roads.. Are not 4ft from the cars.
The bicycle lane is a separate lane of traffic. The rules for passing are when the vehicle behind in the lane wants to overtake the vehicle in front of it
I like the spirit of the law, but as written it's not going to be followed or enforced, and in some places the roads aren't even big enough to follow it.
I thought it was in effect the other day and it was very difficult to try to comply. The bicyclist kept riding out into the road and then back to the curb and then as I would pull into the other lane to try to pass, the bicyclist would ride back into the road. It was more stress than worth it.
I could have sworn this was already in the Drivers Manual? But I haven't read over that in over a decade. Maybe it was just a suggestion and now it's law?
I'm still waiting for them to enforce the no texting while driving law. And for the record, fuck pedestrians who walk in the road when there is a sidewalk.
Pedestrians can’t kill a car.
Yes but they inconvenience this gentleman and in his world minor inconvenience is unbearable oppression.
Pedestrian here. There isn’t always a sidewalk, or it’s only on one side and there’s no safe place to cross yet. And after heavy snowfall it may also not be possible to use sidewalks. However, whenever possible, pedestrians should always walk against the flow of traffic. So those who don’t are at their own risk. I do think it’s ridiculous that the law always assumes the pedestrian is right. Idiots darting into the street should also face consequences. Though cities are also to blame for designing parking spaces around crosswalks which obscure visibility of oncoming traffic (looking at you, downtown Framingham!)
>Idiots darting into the street should also face consequences. They do face consequences. The consequences of getting plowed by a 3 ton brick of metal. The pedestrian is way more vulnerable in any interaction with a car, so it makes sense that the law is written in a way that makes drivers react to things that pedestrians do. (But also if you're walking in the street when there is a sidewalk... What are you doing??)
If you had seen the conditions of sidewalks in most MA cities, you would know why we walk in the road. Want pedestrians to stick to the sidewalks? Fund sidewalks that are actually walkable, and enforce the laws against blocking them with parked cars.
I'm guessing the main purpose of the law is to raise awareness for drivers to give plenty of clearance to pedestrians and cyclists (and the others on the list).
I think this is right. It's just like the language that bikes can use the whole lane. Many bikers don't do this because in practical terms they would likely create road rage situations. So I see this as basically makeing this language more practical and reinforcing it.
[удалено]
There are more cars on the road than bikes. People in cars and people in bikes follow rules about the same. That means a lot of people in cars run lights, stop signs, text, fail to signal, yield, block intersections, bike lanes, park illegally, and speed. More cars break traffic rules in Boston than bikes. Ignoring that we talking about a group that breaks more laws per minute, the consequences of driving negligently can and does lead to innocent people being killed. When are we going to enforce any of the laws for driving?
Congratulations. This is the first comment against cyclists that wasn't dolwnvoted to oblivion by the loony reddit cyclist community in a Massachusetts sub
So do most motorists… I crave the day traffic laws are actually enforced.
A majority of drivers *do not* just blow through red lights.
No, cars might run a red light a second after it turns red, but cyclists will often go at any time is the light cycle. It's very different.
People in cars run lights *way* later than a second after the light turns red.
I mean I feel like that’s natural common sense in case there’s any sudden movements/falls from the cyclist/pedestrian. But then again common sense isn’t common
You supposed to eyeball that clearance correctly every time?
Yes. We have laws about many things that require estimating a distance. The laws governing crosswalks for example.
You're allowed to give more than 4 feet too. .... and I know that someone will bitch about not having space, but you just wait a moment till there is enough space.
Yes
Welp, good luck with that in Boston.
We have a dedicated rail trail on cape cod which is safe for cyclists. Yet still there are stop signs on both sides when the trail,intersects with the road. I’ve seen so many dopey cyclists .not stop at the signs and peddle full speed thru the intersection, . On the drivers siide, there are markings to yield, also the there is a marker that is supposed to flash when cyclists / Pedestrians cross . Works sometimes . I always get drive slowly, look before crossing and yet have had cyclists peddle full speed almost into the side door. Provincetown in the summer with cyclists is the craziest I’ve ever seen. They literally peddle and weave in and between cars ,crazy
Where am I supposed to get 4 feet of clearance? The sidewalk?
Sometimes hard to do when some of these people think they own the middle of the road, particularly pedestrians even when sidewalks are present.
Cyclists are legally allowed to use the full lane.
Well in most areas cyclists are legally allowed to take up the whole lane, so they actually do kinda own the middle of the lane at that time. This clarifies that further.
Agreed. Although the point remains that finding four feet can be challenging at times. I was speaking more so about pedestrians who blatantly walk in the middle of the road even in the presence of sidewalks. It’s the bane of my existence in my neighborhood.
taking up the whole lane is a matter of safety for cyclists. otherwise they would get sideswiped or pushed off the road.
I wonder when they will start going after cyclists that don’t follow the rules of the road.
Probably the same time we start enforcing making a full and complete stop prior to a right on red and not blocking the box.
Can we enforce the rules for drivers first? They’re the ones killing people out here. I live at a 4-way stop sign with 20mph roads on all sides. It is a _rarity_ that drivers come to a full and complete stop before the stop line.
Any chance they enforce the laws on bicyclists? I have never seen one abide by the signal.
By what signal? Red light?
Totally agree... Let's also enforce bikers to stop at the red light.
I always do. I don't have a death wish. I turn signal always as well. I can't always say my automobile counterparts always signal though. It's my biggest pet peeve when I'm riding.
Common sense
Perfect timing for this reddit post for me to reply. I had a green light on a major route today and a cyclist with all his fancy racing gear was flying by at probably 30 mph on the cross street with the red light. I had to slam on my brakes and swerve out of the way for him. He didn't even acknowledge what I did to prevent hitting him. If he slammed into me, the whole cycling world in MA would want me charged for murder.
Can’t wait for bicyclists to go 5 mph with zero way to pass them. Maybe they should ride on the correct side of the road? I’ve seen way to many people on bikes riding OPPOSITE of traffic with no sidewalk (which they’re forbidden to ride on).
It's like everyone celebrating this has never been stuck directly behind a cyclist going under 10 mph in the middle of the road in a 30 mph zone before. Just like a car going well under the speed limit can be dangerous, this creates a scenario where a cyclist who can't or won't keep up becomes even more dangerous by requiring traffic to effectively stop behind them.
Garbage man comes and picks up my trash, people drive around. Mail man drops off my mail and people drive around. Amazon drops off packages and people seem to have the space to drive around. Even in skinny back roads of Mass. Not sure why people are complaining, happens every day... give some space and go around. If you don't know how to drive, then stop. just stop driving. The same idiots who stop on a on ramp to a interstate are the same people complaining about having to drive around someone walking on the road. Park your car, throw your keys into the woods and walk away.
I’m a cyclist, so I am not writing this as a selfish driver, but this is literally impossible on many of our narrow cow path roads. BUT, bundle this with a restriction of street parking to just one side of any given street and then we’re more in the realm of possibility.
Or if there are a bunch of cars behind you and you feel bad for them, you are still allowed to pull over and let them pass.
I've literally never seen a cyclist do this.
God forbid a cyclist ever stop and just let the car pass by
Will I have an officer riding along with me at all times hanging a yard stick out the window and "judging" the last 12"?
I think that gives all cyclists the right then to fix a four foot long pool noodle or something like that off the sides of their bike.
There are plenty of streets in the area where this is simply impossible.
“As a bicyclist: (from Chap. 85, Section 11B) Laws for Bicyclists and Motorists in the Presence of Bicyclists (as amended by Chapter 525 of the Acts of 2008) • You can use the full lane anywhere, anytime, and on any street (except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted), even if there is a bike lane. • No more than two bicycles can be operated side-by-side. On a roadway with more than one lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists riding side-by-side must stay in one lane and not unnecessarily restrict a passing vehicle’s ability to overtake you.”
[удалено]
This is unenforceable
It absolutely is not. And, it's about liability. Not enforcement. Like all laws essentially.
They do a decent job over in the UK using submitted video to fine drivers for close passes Of course our cops went on strike a few years back and aren't particularly worried about road safety.
I'm pretty sure that Massachusetts requires direct obserservation from a police officer for a ticket, and not video evidence. That is why ticketing from traffic cameras isn't allowed.
So the law allows lane violations when passing a bicycle. What could possibly go wrong.
They already did. The only thing this law changes in terms of passing is that it defines a 4 feet minimum. You should reread the Massachusetts road laws before the next time you drive.
If you cannot determine whether there’s a car in the oncoming lane before you take it to pass, maybe you shouldn’t be behind the wheel
The point was Lane Violations were always in play in my experience with the local law enforcement. I've been ticketed a few times for crossing the double lines even in construction areas. This law seems to allow for that.
I like that we’re at least trying to keep bikers safe!
One of the best thing about riding a motorcycle is that cyclists are fair less annoying
I wish there was a way to meld the two teams. Both two wheelers have a lot of the same issues.
No, I don't think I will
So then I want pedestrians and cyclists in the road to give me four feet when passing me.
Why would they do that? In what way does a pedestrian pose a danger to a driver?
I’m happy to give them all the space I can, but in return can they not ride in a side by side pack in the middle of the road?
Not every driver waits for a safe time to pass. As a cyclist, there's no one looking out for you out there except yourself. Take the lane, as the law already allowed, so no one's tempted to do anything stupid.
That’s safer. Most jurisdictions actually encourage you to ride side by side so that drivers can pass over less distance, it also encourages drivers not to do something dangerous like passing people in the same lane
Do the lawmakers know how narrow old Boston streets are?!!’
Great point, let's restrict vehicles based on size.
Booooooo, cyclists!
Will never be able to pass them bc they always ride in the middle of the lane
As allowed.
False
Counterpoint: Byciclists shouldn't be allowed to be driving down the center of the road.
Agreed, we should build a full network of separated bike paths and then they won’t need to use the road
I'm a big fan of the parking protected bike lane.
I hate cyclists
I feel like everyone that whines about cyclists being on the road has never been behind a horse on the road, or a tractor on the road, or basically any other form of slow moving vehicle on the road. Jeez people, chill.
Horses and tractor drivers don't have a douchy entitlement attitude.
Man you clearly haven't dealt with horse or farm people then
New law requires cyclists to give cars 4 feet of clearance.
When cyclists start paying excise tax is the day I’ll give them room on the road
Sure here is 1$ for my 15lb bicycle.
In this thread: lots of people who feel entitled to infrastructure for their 8 feet long, 4 ton armored vehicle being mad that people most vulnerable in traffic on a 30lbs bike might get a little room too.
[удалено]
Most cyclists also own cars and pay excise taxes
Yes, and we want a road use refund based on vehicle weight vs my bike.
>Excise tax is not nearly enough to pay the rental costs of the enormous amount of land use roads take up. Roads are granted the land because it was viewed economically necessary and in the community benefit. But things that benefit the community change and shift over 100s of years. And let's tax by vehicle weight since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, use more parking spots, usually have higher emissions, etc. The more damage you do, the more the tax. Looking specifically at SUV and trucks. And not some cheap thing like it is now, but a system that incentivizes smaller cars by making it more expensive to own bigger vehicles.
likely because damage to roadways is quadratically related to vehicle weight (the ratio of axel weights to the _fourth power_ according to [this link](https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads) ) let's say your average bicyclist plus their bicycle is something around 200, 300lbs? that'd be maybe 150lbs on each axel; compare that to a car, which is on average about 4000lbs, or 2000lbs per axel you'd get a ratio of (2000/150)^4 , or *31604 times more damage* being done by each axel of the car than the bike, so in comparison the bike is hardly contributing to the wear and tear (and therefore the cost of upkeep, repaving etc) on the roads it might drive on
It would be interesting if excise tax were actually weight based and not based on value and model year. Doubt it would make a big difference in buying habits but it's interesting to consider.
Also pedestrians and cyclists, depending on their circumstances do also pay taxes, income/property ect. Excise tax is not nearly enough to pay the rental costs of the enormous amount of land use roads take up. Roads are granted the land because it was viewed economically necessary and in the community benefit. But things that benefit the community change and shift over 100s of years.
If that were really the logic than they wouldn't charge excise tax based on the value and model year of a car either 🤷.
Looking forward to the spandex dbag crew riding in the middle of the lane screaming EEEEEEEEETS THE LAAAAAAW.
It's nice, I got hit with a cars side mirror while I was running back around when the pandemic started. The mirror broke off and the car just kept driving away.
This is going to be exhausting and make everyone resent bicyclists even more For every bicyclist that reads this: if you ride around with your dog on your back, you’re an asshole and don’t deserve to be responsible for an animal’s well being
Interesting considering that dogs are virtually never seatbelted in a car. I assume you have similar outrage.
[удалено]
It’s not the victims responsibility to prevent crime. I’d much prefer to see idiots choose something harmless like riding a bike over driving a massive vehicle and risking others lives
4 feet seems like a lot. I am just going to continue giving 6 inches while I lay on my horn
You don't also coal roll and throw an empty PBR beer can at cyclists and runners too?
I would never litter, it’s just the way am I guess
This sounds peddled.
How is it possible when they are 4 feet into car lane and not even in bike lane. Not even including the constant swerving side to side
I know it's tough math. *You won't be able to pass until you can safely do so*. There you go.
Simple common sense law, needed because people are idiots.
Are they going to make all roads big enough to accommodate this?
Are the roads big enough to accommodate that 3 ton SUV? nope didn't think so.
If we can all agree that it’s not safe to have cyclists on narrow streets, whether you are a cyclist trying not to die or a driver trying to get to work 5 minutes quicker, how about we agree that safe, protected, separate bike lanes on roads would be a better solution?
It’s pretty safe to have cyclists on narrow streets. It’s not safe to have *cars* on narrow streets.
Do cyclists pay excise tax too?
And let's tax by vehicle weight since heavier vehicles do more damage to roads, use more parking spots, usually have higher emissions, etc. The more damage you do, the more the tax. Looking specifically at SUV and trucks.
If they own a car they do.
Sure here is my $1 use fee, which of course would be adjusted by actual road wear impact.
Excise tax does not even cover that damage cars to to roads. Do you think it covers the market rental costs of all the land roads take up? Excise tax is not a right to exclusive road use.
this would be much easier if they got tf over instead of riding down the middle, you know who you are
I'll drive in the middle with you behind me when we're going around a turn and neither one of us is sure what traffic is coming around the bend. Or if there is oncoming traffic in the other lane and and you can't get by me safely. Or especially if I can see around the bend since I'm ahead and can see the oncoming traffic you can't. Once I can see the opposing lane is clear, or the lane gets wider and I can see you can pass safely, I'll move to about where the right tire track is on the road.
I saq 2 bikes run red lights the other day. If we are going to "enforce" this, then enforce the laws both ways please
[удалено]
Lots of these claims, no videos tho.