Traffic Ticket

Have some patience.  I don't live in my blog or on my bike.  Between preparing for court and actually going to court,  I've gotten behind in my paying job, so I've needed to spend some time playing catchup.  

I have posted an account of the trial in the forums section though.  And I am now closing comment on this post with the intent of trying to move further discussions to the forums.

/dwight

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Dwight... April 30 has come and gone. I've been anxiously awaiting to hear what happened at the court. UPDATE, por favor?

Dwight,

I just got the news in email from my lawyer moments ago. I also got a confirmation document from public records.

My lawyer filed a motion for dismissal on Monday, filing it with the clerk of court and delivering by hand what he called a courtesy copy to the judge's chambers. I had not received anything in today's mail and my court date was to be next Tuesday at 9am.

His response was to give me the document, on which in lovely black and white, DISMISSED.
Both traffic citations, both dismissed. No fines, no costs, just justice for the little guy.

Please to consider to hire a lawyer if you have a few dollars and ask if he thinks it's advisable to file a motion to dismiss.

It cost me a pretty good sized chunk of change, but I can now operate my velomobile safely on public roads and not expect to be cited. I may yet get pulled over, but I will have a laminated copy of the court papers to help the good officer to understand how the court sees this particular law!

fred

Today was pretty much a waste of time.  When I got down there, I waited in the court room with some other people until my name was called.  I then went out into the hall with the prosecutor to discuss it.  However, when she looked through her folder, pretty much the only thing she had was a copy of the original ticket.  I even had to show her (in my copy of Idaho Bicycling Street Smarts) what the law actually says since she was unfamiliar with that code.  Apparently the officer was supposed to send some notes about why he stopped me, but he has not done so yet.  Since she didn't have any info from the officer besides what was on the ticket, we couldn't really do anything today except set the date for the trial (April 30).  Since the officer will be present, we will again discuss it before the trial and hopefully come to a resolution.

In the mean time, I've been playing phone tag with a lieutenant from the Sheriff's office.  Hopefully we will be able to get a constructive dialog going soon between the Sheriff's office and cyclists.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

I don't know if tickets are handled in the same manner in this state, but that would be a great way to deal with it. For your situation and mine, I'd hope to get some document in writing to show the next cop that it's legal to operate in this manner.

I've had other messages from other forums that indicate that recording in a public location where there is no expectation of privacy is not a violation. My belief is that any officer who objects to being recorded is trying to hide something.

Since the chief of police was a "witness" to my violation, I don't know that opening a dialog with that department is going to be very helpful. My call to the city manager's office has not yet been returned, but neither has my call to a bike-friendly lawyer's office.

I'm encouraged that you have such news to report.

Fred - Sorry it happened to you too.  But maybe this can also be an opportunity for you and a local advocacy group to open communications with the police.  Interesting about the recording though.  If you are in a public space, how can anybody tell you that you can't make a recording?   Do let us know how that turns out.

I took the first step in my process today.  I went down to the courhouse to deny the charge.  This only involved going to the clerk,  showing her the ticket and letting her know of my intentions.  She then scheduled me for a Court Trial Conference on March 20.  They emphasize that a trial conference IS NOT a court trial.  At this conference I'll have an opportunity to meet with a prosecutor and we'll try to settle the case then.  If we can't come to an agreement at the conference, then the case will go to court.

No matter how it works out with the prosecutor though I'm still hoping to start a dialog with the Sheriff.  With more people looking to bicycles for their transportation needs and the various city and state governments promoting it, I think it would be better if we could work with law enforcement to help them establish a better policy for dealing with bicyclists.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Not that I wanted this to happen, but I'm joining up with Dwight and will be going to a hearing on the citation I received today.

I was stopped for "fail ride bicycle to right of lane" and the statute for which I was cited was the very one I use to qualify my position. It's FL 316.2065(5)(a) but I have that number memorized. I was tailed by what I found out later was the chief of police for the city of Port Orange, who then called a marked car to pull me over. The chief, who was not identified at this point, asked me if what I was doing was dangerous and I replied that it was the safest manner of riding, especially in this heavy rain and on a 50 mph narrow lane. It was pouring when he started following me and had trickled off during the traffic stop.

I have 30 days to apply in writing for a hearing, rather than pay a $91.00 fine listed on the ticket. The above statute also references fines for this statute and that is listed as $15 or $30, so the officer writing the fine didn't know, or the information online is not up to date.

I've also placed a request with the assistant to the city manager for an informal meeting. She asked about the business reason and I provided, "Bicycle safety and law enforcement", which I believe she wrote down. She asked for a clarification and I said, "This is regarding a traffic stop and no citation last week, followed by a traffic and citation today." She apparently wrote more and said "Two citations?" I replied, "One stop, with no citation, but a threat, and one stop with a citation and another threat." Since the words 'law enforcement' is likely to appear to the city manager, he's likely to go to the chief, and clearly, the chief will be aware of the reason.

I don't know if a city manager can reverse a ticket of this nature, but if he can't or won't, I'll be at the hearing. I hope to find a qualified lawyer that I can afford, being self-employed in a miserable economy. Even if the city manager can get the ticket dropped, I want something in writing that will stop this harassement by law enforcement.

During the stop, I was asked to move to the rear of the cruiser to sign the ticket, which I did. I towed my velomobile rearward and was told I didn't need to do that. I replied, "My mic is still live" and was then barraged with imaginary reasons why I can't record a traffic stop. The primary reason was that I was interfering with a law enforcement officer's duty and would be cited if I didn't turn it off. I have since looked up the statute and it's pretty garbled legalese, but does state that there is no expectation of privacy during a public meeting. I'd consider a traffic stop to be a public meeting, but I'll have the city manager's lawyers provide the answer to that one, or have to spring for a more versatile lawyer willing to address that one too. Since it's a third degree felony, which I doubt the cop knew, I don't need that headache. You don't get "cited" for a third degree felony, as far as I know. I did stop the recording, after ignoring his ridiculous head gestures and waited until he told me in plain english to stop recording. Certainly recording a traffic interferes with an officer's performance of duty, because he is unable to make threats and ridiculous claims about the statutes.

In the middle of the stop, the chief departed and the officer then told me who he was. I remarked, "The chief does not understand bicycle safety and the law." The cop replied, "I don't think so." Just because he's the chief, or perhaps because of it, he can't know every aspect of every law. I don't. I do know as many of the laws as I possibly can regarding cycling in this state, and learned a little bit more about recording traffic stops.

One of the cops today told me that he didn't understand why I continued to push his limits and keep asking for trouble. I then asked permission to turn on the recording device and was denied. Since I had signed the citation, I said "then I have nothing else to say." Foolishly, I climbed back in the velomobile, secured the top and shouted back, "see you in court, boys!" I was pretty ticked off.

I am not "pushing his limits" by operating in a safe manner allowed by law and I am not argumentative during the stops. This stop had almost no conversation, they took my license and wrote the ticket. I was told, off camera, that if any portion of this stop appeared online, I would be cited for the recording violation. If I get the law cleared in that respect, to my benefit, I will put it online, of course.

Let me just throw this out there for all to chew on. How about thanking our economic times brought about by our favorite president of all time!!! And how all state/local/and national government agencies are seeking every penny they can, anyway they can.

Good Day - can you get your license suspended if you get to many infractions on your bicycle?

IFcyclist, unfortunately I did not have copy of Idaho Bicyling Street Smarts with me when I was stopped. Maybe it would have helped.

The point of my last post was that we have one branch of government stating that certain practices are legal and another branch of government stating that the same practices are not. Something is wrong with this picture.

Cyclists shouldn't have to carry anything to show law enforcement officers what the law states! How many motorists keep a copy of the motor vehicle statutes in their glove compartment?

Bob T, you busted my theory! I have carried a copy of Idaho Street Smarts with me when cycling on the assumption that it might make a difference if I was stopped for "being on the road". So far I have not had to put the theory to a test myself. It appears that at least some police officers will just blow the book off as being the deranged ideas of radical cyclists.

At one time I asked an Idaho police chief who is supportive about cycling how the NHTSA Police Training Course could be used for training local police officers. He told me the best approach is to get the training added to a law enforcement website called Idaho POST. It is apparently used by all law enforcement agencies statewide. I have not followed up on trying to find out how to get something added to this site.

According to the Definitions section of Idaho Code, the 'Roadway' does not include any shoulder

49-119 Definitions -- R
...
(19) "Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of sidewalks, shoulders, berms and rights-of-way.

As for bicycles use of the roads, there is the basic 'Traffic laws apply' law (I.C. 49-714).  Idaho code does not explicitly state that bicyclists are allowed full use of the lane, but 49-717 does talk about position on the highway (as close as practicable to the right side of the roadway).  Note that "as close as practicable" does NOT mean "as close as possible".   The Idaho Bicycling Street Smarts guide that Bob mentioned even includes a footnote to 49-717 that states "Allow yourself enough room from the curb oredge of pavements to safely and reasonably avoid hazards."

BTW: All of the Idaho laws that relate to bicyclists can be found in the front of the Idaho Bicycling Street Smarts or on the back cover of the Idaho Bicycle Commuter Guide.  Both books should be available at local DMV offices or you can request them directly from ITD.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Bob T,

Some states have statutes which define the roadway and further define the use of that roadway for bicycles. If you can find those specific statutes, it would not matter what the representatives have to say.

The second statement is also addressed in some statutes, in that you have the full use of the lane when it is unsafe for a motor vehicle and bicycle to occupy the lane side-by-side.

I do not have the specific statute numbers for Florida for the first paragraph, but I have memorized the second.

If you can either carry copies of the statutes, or memorize the numbers, you are prepared to deal with uninformed law enforcement in any form.

While cycling I attempt to follow the guidelines found in a manual titled Idaho Bicycling Street Smarts, which is funded by the Ada County Highway District and the Idaho Transportation Department. However during two recent incidents, representatives of the Ada County Sheriff's Office and the Boise Police Department stated that some of the cycling techniques described in the above publication are illegal and unsafe. What should a safety-conscious cyclist (who also wants to be a law-abiding citizen) make of this apparent contradiction? Would the ACHD and ITD actually fund anything which promotes illegal practices?

Here are two relevant quotes:

"Generally, the usable width of the road begins where you can ride without increased danger of falls, jolts or blowouts. A road may have a gravel shoulder, its edge may be covered with sand or trash or the pavement may be broken. Don't ride there. Closer to the center, there's better pavement, which is swept clean of sand and debris by the passing cars. The right side of the road begins here." (chapter 2, section 2)

"On a road with two or more narrow lanes in your direction - like many city streets - you should ride in the middle of the right lane at all times. You need to send the message to drivers to move to the passing lane to pass you. If you ride all the way to the right, two cars may pass you at the same time, side by side, and squeeze you off the road." (chapter 2, section 4)

No, TriClyde, you apparently don't see how I was disturbed.  The possibility that, as a cop, you are unable to grasp what is at the heart of this matter has me more concerned than ever.

First a clarification:  It was Deputy Lim who stated to Dwight that he "really shouldn't be on Chinden at all," as reported by Dwight in his original post.  It is very clear that I was referring to Deputy Lim's remark and not yours.  Please don't dismiss or try to trivialize opposing viewpoints by misrepresenting them.  Instead, try to understand them.

You repeatedly suggest that it is your duty as a cop to "keep people safe."  This notion is commendable but not a sufficient definition of a cop's duties.  A more precise definition is that it is your duty as a cop to enforce the law.  This is a crucial distinction because it helps define the limits of what cops can and cannot do while on duty. 

For example, you don't get to define what is safe for cyclists or anyone else.    As much as you may believe that Dwight's actions were unsafe, these beliefs are irrelevant in the context of a traffic stop.  You can't stop someone based on these beliefs and you can't expound upon these beliefs during the stop.  Your beliefs may be based on years of experience as a traffic cop or even a cyclist-- it doesn't matter.    Your job as a cop is to enforce laws that already exist.  With the power, authority, and intimidation inherent in a traffic stop, even an offhand comment like Deputy Lim's effectively defines a new law on the spot if it contradicts existing law.  In this case it absolutely contradicts the law.  I've already pointed out a minor example of the very real danger of this behavior.  Shame on Deputy Lim for saying it and shame on anyone else who defends it.

TriClyde, please stop confusing law enforcement with some sort of bully pulpit for spreading one's personal beliefs, whatever they may be.  If you do this, as Deputy Lim has, in the course of your normal duties as a law enforcement officer you undermine the legitimate efforts of many people-- citizens, cycling advocates, legislators, judges, and cops among them-- to create a system that is actually safer for cyclists and motorists, not just safer in your mind.

IFcyclist, I followed the link you provided and was quite impressed with the material. I especially like the "endorsement" by the NHTSA and the specific reference to Law Enforcement. I did not take the entire course at this sitting, but did click on links within the course specific to this discussion.

Impeding traffic: specifically referenced as being applied to operators of motor vehicles and inapplicable to bicycles. The wording "inapplicable to bicycles" at that location was ambiguous enough to create controversy in discussion with a law enforcement, but the portion containing "motor vehicle" is certainly not ambiguous.

Lane width and safety: covered in more than one segment, including safe passing and how it applies to the laws for all vehicles, including motor vehicles, and including riding in the lane for door-zone avoidance.

This particular course offering also apparently qualifies for Continuing Education Units for law enforcement officers, so I plan to provide this information to as many law enforcement officers in my area as I can. If I can get moving on it, I also want to provide a letter to the local police chiefs and town managers, on a suggestion from a respected cycling authority. I will now include reference to this CEU course, which has to improve the situation overall (if implemented, of course).

Officer Clyde, I might have not phrased my comment about cyclists' safety particularly well. My experiences with traffic stops and law enforcement officers have indicated that the officers have substantially less experience on the road as a cyclist, as a trained cyclist, and substantially less understanding of the Florida Statutes specific to bicycles than I do. In at least two cases, the officer has acknowledged this and gained respect from me for doing so. In more than two cases, the officer insisted that his opinion was all that mattered, and specific facts were rejected out-of-hand by the officer.

My statement that the cyclist is the one to determine his safety is relative specifically to sub-standard width lanes. "If the lane is too narrow for a motor vehicle and bicycle to occupy safely at the same time." The motor vehicle operator is not the one to determine the level of safety, as the risk to the operator of the motor vehicle is virutally nil. The cyclist is the one to determine the level of safety and thereby determine if another vehicle should be permitted to occupy the lane at the same time. I occasionally determine that a motorcycle approaching from behind can safely occupy the lane with me, move over slightly and signal him to pass. I will not do that with a wider motor vehicle overtaking on a sub-standard width lane.

The above referenced NHTSA course also specifies that the cyclist is the one to determine the level of safety and also notes that on roadways with higher speeds, greater passing clearance is advised. I know from my research that some states have laws of increasing passing clearance with increasing speed. My opinion is that if cyclists were properly trained and properly skilled, these laws would not be needed. I also believe that a passing-clearance law does not make cycling safer. The cyclist's proper and safe operation on the roadways is what makes that determination.

If you are in law enforcement, you may be aware that some states have "move over" laws which require motor vehicle operators to change lanes (or slow to 20 mph below the speed limit) when overtaking a stopped emergency vehicle. You may also be aware that few motorists obey this law. That particular law does not make law enforcement officers safer, if the motorist is not obeying it.

Bob T., your question need not be in any particular context to be valid for Dwight's case. Every bit of documentation I've seen for cyclists' lane positioning is referenced to the cyclist. Of course, that does not mean a judge could rule otherwise. That's the unfortunate circumstances in these cases, from what I've read. Specific to Dwight's case and I hope he uses it, is that all cycling safety texts I've seen state that the cyclist should stay out of right-turn only lanes unless turning right.

I have nothing but respect and appreciation for all those involved in law enforcement. You have been entrusted with the power of the state which is an honor but also a tremendous responsibility. In a perfect world your occupation wouldn't be needed, but under current conditions I wish that there were more of you around.

I believe that there are two major issues involved in these recent incidents: legality and safety. The BPD officer who stopped me this morning did not feel that my riding in the center of the right lane was legal, and he also expressed concerns for my safety. I tried to explain that what I was doing was both legal and safer than any other option (and I have tried the others). I do not just rely on proper lane position for my safety but have also taken so many steps to make myself conspicuous while riding that I am an embarrassment to my family. I am a firm believer in maximizing safety, but I also acknowledge that in this life it is impossible to eliminate all risk.

I am convinced that any understanding reached between the TVCA and local law enforcement agencies must thoroughly address both the legal and safety issues. Unless law enforcement officers can be convinced that vehicular cycling methods are safe there will always be questions concerning their legality.

TriClyde may deny it, but he really does come pretty close to saying in his first posts that police officers in Idaho are so well trained that they could almost never learn anything new in their field. I happen to have a Ph.D. in a scientific field but would never claim that I know everything there is to know in my field. Cyclist crash studies conducted since the 1970s give a good indication of the main causes of bike-car collisions, and riding further left in a lane is not one of them. If a police department spends much of its cyclist enforcement efforts handing out tickets for 49-717 but rarely issues them for wrong-way riding, failing to yield at intersections, or riding at night without the required lights/reflectors, there is a good chance the department is actually having an overall negative effect on cyclist safety. It is possible that TriClyde's department has a good track record on this issue, maybe not. The police patrolling where I ride pass wrong-way and unlighted nighttime cyclists all the time and virtually never stop them.

By the way, the NHTSA has issued a training course for police officers called “Enhancing Bicycle Safety: A Law Enforcement's Role”. It has its flaws but overall is still pretty good. In some places officers can get continuing education credits for taking it. An on-line link to it is available at

NHTSA Course

I don't recall seeing impeding traffic mentioned that much in the course if at all. Since I don't know TriClyde personally, he may already know everything stated in this course and be able to say that it is a waste of his time. However, I doubt that is true of all police officers in Idaho. Note that I have no animosity towards police officers in general and do support them playing an important role in cyclist safety. The issue here is whether they are really being as even-handed to cyclists as they believe.

BTW: The point of my question was that whether Officer Lim knew me or not or was aware of my skills is irrelevant.  I was riding legally in the lane, so even if in your or Officer Lim's opinion that was not a safe place for me to be, it was not illegal.  So the stop (with lights and siren) should not have happened.  Maybe if he had pulled over in front of me and waived me over things could have gone better, but that gets back to the concept of TVCA helping law enforcement to establish a better policy.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Does the law enforcement officer (who states an 11 foot lane is wide enough to share) or the cyclist (who doesn't want to share a lane that is less than 14 feet wide)?

I believe that the answer to this question in a different context will also be key in Dwight's case.

TriClyde - there is no anger or contempt or loathing from TVCA towards law enforcement.  Our position is that this incident will hopefully allow us to open a dialog and work with law enforcement to help them establish a better policy for dealing with bicyclists.  Hopefully similar to what BikePortland was able to accomplish after a similar incident there.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

TriClyde - Lets make this real simple then. From the description of how I was riding, and given what 49-717 says (including section C), was I violating that law?

Dwight, I would like to answer that, but not in this forum.

First, message boards are full of too much anger and contempt. No matter what I said someone would twist it to fit their agenda. Second, if I agree with you it would seem that I was stabbing a friend and co-worker in the back. I am not the type of person to do that, even if I were I would not do it out in the open for all to see. If I agree with Deputy Lim, then it just adds to the loathing opinion of police officers which is out of control already.

If I answer your question HERE, it is a lose-lose situation for me.

My original post was an attempt explain two things: 1)Cops really are just trying to keep people safe and not trying to make people's lives miserable. 2)Risk in inherent in almost everything we do. Some things increase that risk and other things decrease that risk.

Never once in my original post did I say Deputy Lim was right and Dwight was wrong. If you inferred that from my post then you are either biased against cops or are one of the people that only post on message boards to create arguments. I attempted to shed some light on perhaps why Deputy Lim made the stop. Do I KNOW why with certainty? No. And neither does anyone else that has posted here. However, knowing Deputy Lim and knowing his job, I feel comfortable in stating he had the overall welfare of everyone in mind. Did he know Dwight? Did he know Dwight's riding experience and background? Does it matter? No, he has a job to do and was doing it. He believes he saw a rule violation and addressed it. It is as simple as that. As much as the cop haters want to believe we just drive around all day looking for someone's day to ruin, it will never be true. We are truly trying to keep people safe. I will never apologize for doing that, even if it disrupts someone's day for a few minutes.

So who is right and who is wrong in the case of Deputy Lim and Dwight? Each have valid arguments it would appear. Only a judge has the right to decide. Personally, I do not care who 'wins' at court. I still believe the 'ticket' is and afterthought of the big picture. In that respect, that is why my post was not about who was right.

As for point number 2, people dismiss risk to easily. Should we live in fear and never leave our homes. Of course not, that is ridiculous. But just as ridiculous is dismissing the concept that we can minimize certain risks without altering our lives much - why wouldn't we. Do you wear a helmet while riding? If so, why? I would assume it is to minimize the risk of a head injury if an accident occurs and not because they look incredibly cool. Motor vehicle accidents tend to follow trends. Some places have more accidents than others and some times of day see more accidents than others. If I have a choice, I'm going to avoid those areas at those times. Sure, go ahead and make the 'scared triathlete' comments, but please know that it is unfounded. I place myself at risk on a daily basis at work, but I train and use sound tactics to minimize that risk. Why would I not do the same in my personal life? I am told skydiving is dangerous, but I know people still do it. They accept the risk - with limits. If I gave an experienced skydiver a choice between doing it during the day and in a place with a flat landing surface or at night in a rocky area I bet I know what their answer would be. Minimizing risk is common sense - or at least I thought it was before I posted.

Bottom line: I am a cyclist. I own 10 bikes of which only 1 is a triathlon specific bike. I started cycling in 1989, I started triathlons in 2000. I believe cyclists should have more advocates among lawmakers ensuring more rights and, in turn, realizing more enjoyment and safety in their sport. I am a police officer. I risk my life each day at work so the average citizen can feel safe in their daily lives. I have nearly been struck by vehicles, I have been in numerous fights with criminals, someone verbally threatens my life on average once a month. Still, my focus is keeping those around me safe. I realize that my job duties annoy many people. I am perfectly fine annoying a few good people on occasion to accomplish my overall objective.

Idaho Code 49-120 (29) provides the legal definition of a substandard lane:

"Substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

The AASHTO guide you mention provides national guidelines that most state transportation departments follow for bicycle facilities, and it does indeed recommend 14 feet.

TriClyde - Lets make this real simple then.  From the description of how I was riding, and given what 49-717 says (including section C), was I violating that law?  

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Dwight, please allow me to clarify one of my statements. The 'average' citizen is not qualified to educate someone on traffic laws that they are already educated in. Are they exceptions? Of course, and you may be one. However, to assume simply because one logs more miles in the saddle than the officer then they must know more would be incorrect. I saw some posts that seemed to be indicating that. Always assuming we know more than the next guy is a dangerous path to go down.

Kurtz, I can see how you were disturbed by my post. It appears you read it with preconceived notions that clouded your understanding before you even started. For example, I cannot find where anyone stated that cyclists should not be on Chinden. I certainly didn't, but you indicated that I did and then added some fearful language to drive home your point. I stated, "While I commend Dwight for being a bike commuter, I would never do it on Chinden at rush hour." They key word is 'I'. I would never do it, but have no problem with others, such as Dwight, doing it. Please don't twist my words to make your point seem relevant.

JeffS, here is a quote from your post, "I will say that the "you shouldn't be on this road at all" comment does prettymuch sum things up for me." Please find the referenced statment in my post. You can't, therefore that sums up your post.

IFcyclist, in reference to your comment, "Most car-bike collisions in urban areas are due to crossing and turning movements at intersections and driveways, not overtaking vehicles." I was not addressing urban areas and certain movements. I was addressing local areas and all movements in general from my experience of responding to the collisions themselves. As for my own personal experiences of being struck by vehicles while cycling (twice), each time I was injured, but the driver of the vehile was not. Also, you mentioned, "In my experience, cyclists are rarely stopped in Idaho for these kinds of violations, which calls into question the claim that the police are really that interested in cyclist safety." What experience are you talking about? Have you gone on a ride along with an officer at night before? All agencies in this valley accept citizen ride-alongs, I suggest you go on a few and then rethink that statement.

fred_dot_u, I have to comment on the statement, "The cyclist is the person to determine his own safety and method of operation. The same concept applies to someone who would suggest that safe vehicular operation by the cyclist is endangering motorists." I could not disagree more. Riding defensively causes one to be aware of others around them that may determine their risk of injury. To simply believe, I am experienced and know what I'm doing so I am in control of my own safety is just not true. That kind of thinking will get you hurt.

I have been referred to this document which states on page 17:

"In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane. Usable width normally would be from edge stripe to lane stripe or from the longitudinal joint of the gutter pan to lane stripe (the gutter pan should not be included as usable width)."

Today at about 7:45am I was commuting to work by bike on Maple Grove between Franklin and Overland. As is my habit I was riding in the middle of the right lane with the left lane available for faster vehicles to use (of which there are hardly any at that hour on a Saturday). Next thing I knew I was stopped by a Boise Police Department officer who told me that since I was unable to keep up with the normal flow of traffic I needed to be as far to the right as possible, not in the middle of the right lane. I asked which law I was breaking by riding this way and he could not give me a specific answer, but stated that he would research the matter and would issue a citation if necessary the next time that he saw me. I mentioned that the Idaho Code states that I only need to ride as far to the right as "practicable" with various exceptions including "substandard with lanes". The officer stated that Maple Grove has "standard" 11 foot wide lanes which he felt were wide enough for a bicycle and car to share. I respectfully disagreed with him. (I have since done some preliminary research which seems to indicate that for the purpose of this statute, any lane less than 14 feet wide is "substandard". Does anyone know where I can find a legal definition?). I also mentioned that the Boise City Code goes even further and specifically states that cyclists are entitled to use the right lane.

Our conversation was cordial and there appears to be a possibility for further dialog with the officer (and hopefully with his superiors) regarding this matter.

Your comments are excellent and you make good points, Road Cyclist.

However, I'll differ on one detail... you suggest that riding on freeways is banned.

Not so in Idaho. I'm not aware of ANY section of freeway in Idaho where it's illegal.

There are, of course, stretches where it would be very poor judgment to ride a bicycle; I'd not do it between Boise and Caldwell, or on the notorious "Connector." (Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's smart.) But I occasionally ride between the Blacks Creek exit and the Gowen exit, for example, usually choosing times when traffic is relatively light. The breakdown lanes are wide, and there's typically plenty of sight distance. (It's not a place to daydream while riding; debris on the freeway tends to be HUGE! And a 70-mph triple-trailer rig puts off a righteous AIR BLAST as it goes by!)

IFcyclist says: ... cyclists are basically guilty until proven innocent. Rather than putting the burden on the authorities to show that it is safe for a cyclist to ride closer to the curb, 49-717 puts the burden on the cyclist to show that it is too unsafe to ride near the curb."

I've always thought (perhaps mistakenly) that quite the opposite was true. Nobody but me can determine what is "as close as practicable" to the edge of the roadway, for me. If they want it to be 3 inches, the law better say 3 inches.

I'm always content to ride to the right of the fog stripe when I make the determination that it's "practicable." But I can surely sympathize with Dwight; there are places where it's just not safe to do so, either due to lack of pavement width, or poorly-maintained pavement. And at such times I'm going to have to share the road with other users (using inferior conveyances... grin).

TriClyde, your comments are disturbing in so many ways.

An encounter of this nature between a citizen and a law enforcement officer is an inherently unbalanced one.    The officer is disrupting the citizen's personal business with the full authority and power of the government.   When wielding this kind of authority it is incumbent upon the officer to at least try to get the facts-- the law-- straight, and to stick to those facts.  This is not an opportunity for the officer to interject personal beliefs unless they happen to be backed up by law.  In Dwight's situation the law is unfortunately ambiguous.   To the extent that it is unclear, I would expect the officer to interpret the law to give Dwight the benefit of the doubt; to favor the point of view of the one responsible for his own safety.

Even though the law is ambiguous it is pretty clear in this case that Dwight was well within the law and was in fact demonstrating the best vehicular cycling practices currently available.   So perhaps Deputy Lim made a mistake.  Fair enough.  But to defend this mistake, particularly to the extent of arrogantly dismissing the possibility that law enforcement could be educated in this matter, is ludicrous.  I don't expect cops to understand cycling safety concepts as well as Dwight but I do expect them to understand the limits of their knowledge and authority.  Anything less is downright dangerous. 

You don't have to think very hard to come up with examples of this danger.   Thankfully Dwight is knowledgeable enough to see through Deputy Lim's attempt at education, but what if this had been one of Dwight's students, without years of experience and training to fall back upon?  This encounter and the comment that cyclists shouldn't be on Chinden, coming with the power, authority, and inherent intimidation of Deputy Lim, would likely have sent that student back to the sidewalk or away from bike commuting altogether.  This would be a major setback in safety and quality of life for all of us.

When it's my turn to be educated by law enforcement I hope the officer understands when I don't say thank you.

Note also that 49-119 (19) defines the "roadway" as:

"that portion of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of sidewalks, shoulders, berms and rights-of-way."

It is hard to see how 49-717 can be used to claim that cyclists have a legal obligation to use the shoulder when it is not part of the roadway. Of course, they can still claim that none of the exceptions existed at the time of the incident, so you should have been on the fog line. 49-120 (29) defines a "substandard width lane".

The big problem with 49-717 is that cyclists are basically guilty until proven innocent. Rather than putting the burden on the authorities to show that it is safe for a cyclist to ride closer to the curb, 49-717 puts the burden on the cyclist to show that it is too unsafe to ride near the curb. This was done purposely decades ago to give the authorities a tool to discourage cyclists from using the roads. Attitudes towards cycling have changed somewhat, but the laws have not changed that much.

"I've been a cyclist for 37 years, but only in the last year have I become more skilled than ever before. Inferiority cycling practices do no favors for the bicycling community."

My transition was similar, about 7-8 years ago. And for the decades of cycling prior to that, I had no idea there was a much better, safer and more comfortable way to ride. I didn't realize that my behavior was dominated by the idea that I needed to stay out of the way of cars, much less how detrimental that belief was to being able to function effectively in traffic. Yet that's exactly what these anti-cyclist cops and cyclists want us to think.

Road Cyclist

Thanks for looking at the CyclistLorax videos. I hope some of the officers here do that as well.

I agree being further out in the lane is better than being just 3 inches into the lane, but the point is it's up to the cyclist to decide where to ride, and either choice is legal, and does not warrant being pulled over, much less a traffic citation.

I don't see any comments suggesting who is or isn't a "real cyclist". I do object to comments implying that no cyclist belongs on certain roads (unless they're freeways, bridges, or tunnels where all slow moving vehicles are banned), and I do find such comments to be anti-cyclist, by definition, even if they're coming from cyclists. But curb huggers are "real cyclists" too, albeit not as safe as cyclists who follow the same rules of the road as do drivers of vehicles.

By the way, I also think "I do tend to fault those who forgo the path to occupy a lane on the road" is an anti-cyclist comment too. What is depicted in that picture is a side path. Side paths are notoriously unsafe, especially for relatively fast transportational cycling. That path looks reasonably safe for maybe 6-8 mph travel. Forcing or expecting serious transportational cyclists to ride on that thing instead of the road so as not to "occupy a lane" on the road is, well, about as anti-cyclist as one can get.

A kid with a backpack riding a mile or two to school is one thing. Someone riding 5-15+ miles to work, or going out for a 20-100+ mile workout, is something entirely different, and a cyclist like that does not belong on that side path. Please keep that in mind.

Road Cyclist

You spend nearly half your post discussing lawbreakers and incompetent motorists, neither of which have any bearing on this situation.

The law allows Dwight to ride his bike on the road (meaning in the lane) and Lim has chosen to cite him for it. The ticket isn't for being on an unsafe road, or surrounding yourself with inattentive drivers, or riding somewhere TriClyde is scared to ride - it's for riding where he is legally allowed to ride.

The idea that he stopped Dwight to "educate" him on a law he either does not know of understand is laughable. Lim's responsibility is to enforce the laws, not make up new ones. I won't assume his intent, but neither should you. I will say that the "you shouldn't be on this road at all" comment does prettymuch sum things up for me. I welcome the day an officer decides to cite me for my legal behavior. I will test his motivations in court and with the media.

TriClyde claims to be fairly knowledgeable about cycling, but the contents of his post indicate that he knows little about cyclist crash statistics. Most car-bike collisions in urban areas are due to crossing and turning movements at intersections and driveways, not overtaking vehicles. Cyclists who drive their bike like a vehicle have a better safety record than those who hug the curb or ride on sidewalks. Crash studies in many countries have shown that sidewalk cyclists are actually 2-9 times more likely to be hit by a car than those using the roads. A police officer who stops road cyclists and forces them onto the sidewalk is not increasing safety.

Also note that the fatality rate per unit time for motorcycle riders is far higher than that for pedalcyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists. In 2007 there were 26 motorcycle fatalities in Idaho compared to 2 cyclist fatalities. Why isn't Deputy Lim pulling motorcycles off busy roads and telling them that they are not allowed to use them for their own safety? Banning motorcycles would have a much larger safety bang for the buck than banning pedalcyclists.

Cyclists are sensitive to this issue because it is still common to be pulled over mainly because they are “disrespecting” motorists by taking more road space or causing them some temporary delay. Often this happens on roads that don't even have that much traffic. If Deputy Lim really is concerned about cyclist safety, why not focus on the safety issues that cause the most car-bike collisions like failing to yield at intersections when required, riding the wrong way, or riding at night without the required safety equipment? In my experience, cyclists are rarely stopped in Idaho for these kinds of violations, which calls into question the claim that the police are really that interested in cyclist safety.

Since  there have been some comments that mention my experience level, I figure I should post all of my qualifications.

I have been commuting by bicycle on Ada county roads since I moved back to Idaho in 1994.  Before that I was also an avid cyclist (though not always a commuting cyclist) in areas such as So. California and Connecticut.  I typically ride 5,000 to 10,000 miles per year, almost entirely on the road.

As has been mentioned, I am a League Certified Instructor (LCI) for the League of Ameican Bicyclists 'Smart Cycling' program.  Along with basic bicycle handling skills, this program includes instruction in the laws that pertain to bicyclists and how to ride safely with traffic (including position on the road).  In 1998 I arranged for an LCI Seminar to be held in Garden City, at which time I became one of the first LCI's in the state.  Also attending that seminar where officers from the Meridian, Mountain Home, and Nampa police departments.  Last summer I arranged for (and helped to conduct) another LCI Seminar that was held at ACHD in Garden City.  At that seminar an additional 6 instructors where certified.

While I have taught a few classes, I'll be the first to admit that I have not done as many classes as I could have over the years.  Unfortunately my marketing skills are not as good as my cycling skills.  Instead I have been more active in bicycling advocacy.  I have been on the Board for TVCA almost since the beginning of the organization, and I was one of the original members of the ACHD Bicycle Advisory Committee, including serving as Vice Chair of the committee until I had to resign at the beginning of the year for some family issues.  In 2005 when the state legislature modified the law concerning bicyclists at stop lights, I was part of the committee (along with law enforcement officers from around the state) that was working on the ammendment.

Officer TriClyde finds it laughable that anyone would "believe they need to educate the officers".  He references the hundreds of laws and traffic codes that officers are supposed to memorize.  I'll admit that I don't know by heart all of the laws in Idaho.  Instead I have spent the last several years focusing on the laws that pertain to bicyclists.  With my experience, I submit that I may indeed be more aware of the nuances of those particular laws than someone who rarely has to pay attention to those specific laws.

Mark McNeese (Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator for the Idaho Transportation Dept.) recently held ten discussion sessions around the state to determine citizens’ visions for walking and bicycling.  The results of those discussions are available in the "Idaho Vision for Walking and Bicycling" document now available in the "Resources and Links" section of this website.  One of the things that came out of those discussions is that citizens feel that law enforcement needs to treat bicyclists as operating 'human-powered vehicles' (per ID Code) as opposed to 'toys'.  Officer Lim's actions and his statements to me and Officer TriClyde's post here are probably good examples of why the citizens feel this way.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

The CyclistLorax videos are interesting. Thanks for pointing those out. With a moment's thought I think it does become self-evident that being well into the lane, and hence more conspicuous, is safer. And that leads me to conclude you should either be well onto the shoulder, out of traffic, or well into the lane, clearly part of traffic.

I think the sociology here is also interesting with more than one suggesting that if you don't endorse a particular view you're not a real cyclist, obviously not among the experts. It reminds me of what those entrenched in different religions tend to say of their detractors.

That part of Chinden looks tough for biking. I don't feel myself getting religious about it either way. I personally would be off the road in the sand but I wouldn't fault anyone for wanting to stay well into the lane. On Parkcenter, the example I mentioned earlier, I do tend to fault those who forgo the path (pictured section) to occupy a lane on the road. I wish those bikers would be more patient with the winding path and more considerate of traffic safety.

Jason Abbott
http://flickr.com/boise/

The Bike Nazi

TryClyde, I did read your entire post, as suggested. To do otherwise would be negligent.

I would not disagree that officers of the law are doing their best to keep all users of the roadway as safe as possible. All users include cyclists such as Dwight and he is entitled to equal consideration.

My fifteen thousand miles of experience on sub-standard width lanes while riding suggest that Dwight's position in the lane should have been more to the center of the travel lane, not three inches to the right of the stripe. I have had plenty of officers tell me that I'm in danger in that position, but they cannot attest to have experienced riding in such a location. In the center of the lane, the cyclist is far more visible to approaching traffic in both directions, which gives the motorist more time to react appropriately. This makes the entire event "uneventful" for both the motorist and cyclist.

I suggest that Dwight did not violate the statutes as it is written and he also performed nearly as safely as possible in the situation described. He did not endanger other motorists and any suggestions to the contrary would have to be validated. One officer told me that a motorist would have to slam on the brakes to avoid me, while being in the lane center, but hundreds of hours of video recorded while operating in this manner refutes that. There have been two or three incidents of rapid braking over the last year, but that's far fewer than previous years of riding the stripe or shoulder. This is an indication to me that operators of motor vehicles are in less danger of being tail-ended by another unskilled motor vehicle operator.

My experience with vehicular cycling practices is that those who object to a bicycle being operated as a vehicle, in a safe and proper manner, have had NO experience doing so. Those who have begun to learn the proper practices cannot refute their own experience.

Any officer stopping a bicyclist for operating safely and within the statutes who suggests that he is doing so for the safety of the cyclist is deluding himself. The cyclist is the person to determine his own safety and method of operation. The same concept applies to someone who would suggest that safe vehicular operation by the cyclist is endangering motorists.

There is probably nothing more detrimental to getting the rights of cyclists fully understood and appreciated in our society than ignorant opinions and behaviors of "experienced" cyclists who genuinely believe riding in accordance with those rights is not safe. I usually don't like to generalize, but triathletes in particular are notorious for seeming to believe that the key to traffic cycling safety lies in staying out of the way of same-direction traffic by hugging the curb or edge of the road as much as possible (many seem to associate cycling prowess with how close to the edge they can ride and maintain a straight line), and not really thinking about much else with respect to traffic.

Clyde, Dwight is not only experienced like you are, but he has also had traffic cycling safety training, including all that is required to become a traffic cycling instructor certified by the League of American Bicyclists. He knows what he is doing and he knows that riding on Chinden Blvd can be done safely, and he knows how to do it safely.

It is outrageous that you believe that Deputy Lim was doing Dwight a service for stopping him for riding three inches into the road. You claim that Deputy Lim is not anti-cyclist - that's an understandable opinion coming from someone who obviously is anti-cyclist himself (don't worry, you're not alone, traffic cycling safety is so widespread that probably the majority of cyclists are anti-cyclist too).

With all due respect, I suggest you spend some time watching the videos on the CyclistLorax channel on youtube. It could save your life.

Road Cyclist (not associated with the CyclistLorax channel, except as a fan)

This is a long response, but it’s an issue I feel strongly about and happen to be fairly knowledgeable in this area. If you are not willing to read the entire post – please don’t bother to reply – you will only make yourself look silly to those reading.

Law enforcement officers have the duty to keep people safe – that’s the bottom line in this issue. Unfortunately, they must balance this task between the safety of all parties involved in a particular situation. In this scenario, Chinden Blvd is one of the busiest streets in the state of Idaho at THE busiest time of day. You would be amazed to know how many traffic accidents happen in this area.

How does a law enforcement officer try to keep citizens safe? By attempting to prevent accidents. The best way to do this is to enforce traffic laws. That’s why they write so many traffic tickets – they are actually trying to keep people safe. I realize many of you will disagree with this and that’s okay – you are entitled to your incorrect opinion. Let me see if I can explain why I’m saying this.

If someone is driving 15 mph over the speed limit and passing unsafely and in general being an idiot whose safety is the major concern? The other citizens they are putting in danger – not the moron who is choosing to ignore everyone around them. That’s an easy one.

Now picture the 17 year old female (perhaps your daughter or sister) who is driving along just after dusk and has failed to turn on her lights. Maybe she believes she still has plenty of light to see, but what about others seeing her car from the rear? On a dark stretch of road travelling eastbound, she could be nearly invisible. She is putting herself at great risk. Therefore, you would hope that a law enforcement officer would stop her and educate her about the lighting violation, correct?

As for Dwight’s situation, it’s a little more complex, yet the same principle applies. Deputy Lim is tasked with attempting to keep motorists safe on one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Idaho at the busiest time of day. Let’s face it – people drive poorly. People don’t follow traffic laws (how many people reading this can say they have NEVER broken the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign or passed someone without using a turn signal, etc.). Then there are others that are so preoccupied that they just don’t pay attention to anything beyond 6 feet in front of their front bumper. And there are the inexperienced drivers or the overexperienced drivers (the blue hair white knucklers with bad vision). Of course, some people just don’t really care and will drive however they want to drive not matter what the law is and who it puts in danger – luckily there aren’t a lot of these people but don’t pretend they don’t exist.

So, you have a compilation of poor drivers on a busy road where accidents inevitably happen. Now throw Dwight into the mix. This adds a new element. Even if Dwight does everything by the book and breaks no laws there is still an elevated possibility of an accident due to the motorists I’ve already explained above. Dwight is just one more thing for them to process in addition to the already enormous responsibilities innate with driving safely.

Who is at risk now? Dwight or the motorists? I would submit that Dwight being there at this time of day causes a higher amount of risk to all parties involved. But again, I’m assuming Dwight is not breaking any laws. Even so, the potential risk is higher. Does that mean I’m against bicycle commuters? No. I’m just talking about risk and potential for accidents. It is a dangerous road at a busy time and the risk of accidents are high – higher with Dwight’s presence not through any fault of his own.

Now, what happens when Dwight drifts slightly to the left? When Deputy Lim sees Dwight he immediately thinks of I.C. 49-717 “. . . at the time and place and under the conditions then existing . . .” And therefore he stops Dwight to educate him just as he would in the example of the teenage driver example above. He is attempting to keep DWIGHT safe. Ask yourself this – Who usually wins in a collision between a motorist and a cyclist?

Why would Deputy Lim NOT stop Dwight? He would be doing him a disservice. It has absolutely nothing to do with Dwight’s cycling ability and experience. It has to do with Deputy Lim’s duty to attempt to keep people in Ada County safe, including Dwight.

What happens after the stop that results in a ticket or no ticket is not relevant. The task was to keep people safe and that was the purpose for the stop – while the reason for the stop was the traffic violation. I can only add, if someone is stopping you in an effort to keep you safe – why would one say anything other than, “Thank you.”

I can guarantee you Deputy Lim is not anti-cyclist. I know for a fact that he is an avid runner and I’m sure he does some of that running alongside cyclists. I can also guarantee he is very informed when it comes to traffic laws even as they relate to cyclists. To those who believe they need to educate the officers when they are stopped, I laugh. Do you have hundreds of laws and traffic codes memorized? Did you spend 10 rigorous months in daily training to become an expert in law enforcement as officers in Idaho do? Heck, did you spend 10 learning your own occupation? I can’t speak for every officer, but no one posting here is going to teach Deputy Lim anything he does not already know. Deputy Lim is a studious law enforcement officer keeping up to date on current laws as well as department policies and procedures. Will he “have the gall to show up” to court? Yes, he will be subpoenaed by the court and demanded to show up. He would be in violation of law if he did not show up.

As for the KTVB story, that was specifically about Boise Police Department. Dwight stated he was stopped by the Ada County Sheriff’s Office. Big difference. Ada County does not generate revenue with tickets as BPD does. Pay closer attention to detail and get your facts straight. Nice doughnut comment, you are clearly an original thinker, very impressive.

I suppose I should also explain myself further for the credibility checkers. I am a triathlete with a background in cycling. I have been cycling seriously for approximately 20 years. While I commend Dwight for being a bike commuter, I would never do it on Chinden at rush hour. While I ride a bike at work sometimes and look forward to those times, I am unable to ride a bike to work since I have a company car and am required to drive it to work. By the way, my company car looks exactly like Deputy Lim’s car as I also work for the Ada County Sheriff’s Office. This post in no way represents the views of the Ada County Sheriff’s Office, however. They are simply the views of a triathlete who is passionate about cycling who also happens to be a cop.

I would like to thank everone for the great support and suggestions.  It's really been overwhelming!

I have spoken with local attorney Kurt Holzer who has given me some great advice.  At this point the ticket will need to work through the system.  I'll take some photos of the area to show the situation and if the prosecutor does decide to move forward I'll get to make my case in front of the judge.  Hopefully I'll be able to demonstrate that my position on the road was the most safe and reasonable position for the conditions at the time.

But more importantly, this can be an opportunity for the cycling community to open a dialog with the Sheriff's office.  I'll be writing a letter to Sheriff Raney explaining my reasoning for my position on the road and offering to work with his department to help establish guidelines for both his officers and for cyclists.  Hopefully TVCA and it's members can be a part of that dialog.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Dwight, as a commuting velomobilist, I have been stopped by law enforcement three times in the last week for similar reasons. The law in FL is quite similar to the one in your state and that's to your advantage, in my opinion.

Practicable means able to be practiced safely. The key word is safely. Only you can determine that aspect of your riding. I had a circular discussion with yesterday's traffic officer who didn't seem to understand that the passing of a law does not make my riding safer. It is only my riding practices that determine my safety.

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including fixed or
moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals,
surface hazards or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue
along the right-hand curb or edge.

You were not turning right, based on your description and should not be in the right turn lane. That's pretty clear. If the link provided in the replies is accurate, you were not only entitled to be out of the right turn lane, you should have been in the middle of that sub-standard width lane to further ensure your safety. Because of the danger of right turning vehicles, you were correct to move over to the straight-ahead lane.

My research has shown it's a hit or miss situation in the courts. I've been lucky so far with the dozen or so stops I've been subjected to, in that I've not gotten a ticket. Some courts have ruled against the cyclist, others have ruled for him. If you win, and I certainly hope you do, carry a copy of the judgement with you when you ride.

You might want to research the statutes for your state regarding penalties for cyclists. FL law says no points on the license and in some cases, the fines are a tiny fraction of the motor vehicle equivalent.

For jabbot7, I've discovered that there are many kinds of people on bikes. Some of them are experienced, but unskilled and do not understand safe cycling practices. If you are a stripe-rider, a gutter-bunny, you may fall into that description. Safe cycling does not mean allowing motor vehicles to try to squeeze past you on sub-standard lanes. If your safety is of such little importance to you that you are willing to risk being side-swiped or struck by a motor vehicle, it would be advisable to consider another mode of transportation. If you are irritated by bicyclists on the roadway who may delay your travels a few seconds or more, you may want to consider adjusting your perceptions. The laws in this country do not give precedence on the roadway to those who operate huge chunks of steel, even though the operators of those steel boxes would prefer to believe that.

You mentioned an adjacent bike lane in your post. Many of the roads on which I travel are equipped with a shoulder of perhaps 24" in width. Some of them are wider, some narrower. I do not ride in this area for my own safety. FL has recently passed a law that requires motor vehicle operators to pass bicycles with three feet of clearance. That law does not make me safer, because motorists do not obey it. I once rode in the "bike lane" or on the shoulder and had so many close calls with every ride that I started to move outward from the shoulder. Each time I moved out a foot or so, my ride became safer. I now ride in the center of these sub-standard width lanes (FL DOT says 14 foot is standard) and enjoy a much safer commute.

Of course, this means I get to educate too many law enforcement officers regarding the finer points of bicycle statutes. Yesterday's encounter resulted in the officer threatening to write me a citation if I returned to the street in my usual manner. Since the stop was directly in front of the police department, I asked to speak to a supervisor. Curiously, I got to speak to the same motorcycle officer who was involved in the traffic stop, which resulted in no real resolution. He did admit that he's not likely to cite me, as he'd passed me many times in the past and I was not a hazard to traffic. I think the threat was posturing for the other officer at the stop.

I've also discovered that traffic flows more smoothly and more safely when I ride in the lane than when I ride on the edge. Motorists are able to see me and make appropriate adjusments well in advance, reducing the stress for the motorist as well as increasing the safety for all.

I've been a cyclist for 37 years, but only in the last year have I become more skilled than ever before. Inferiority cycling practices do no favors for the bicycling community.

For your cycling amusement, do a YouTube search for "Curious Foundation" for my traffic stop last week. No audio other than road rumble.

Kurt notified me that the link for a Google map that I had sent out in some email messages was showing someplace in downtown Boise.  I just tried the one that Kurt provided, and while it loaded the correct location for an instant, it then jumped about 3 miles to the west.  I think it might have something to do with what we originally searched for in Google, so try this one instead.  It should take you to Castlebury Rd off of Chindent.

I really did try to be respectful towards the officer.  Unfortunately he just seems to have the same opinion of a lot of motorists out there that bicyclists don't belong on the road. Getting belligerant with the officer would not have done any good.  More education will.  While that has been the goal of TVCA with the Street Smart Cycling program, it looks like we may need to start putting more effort into getting the police interested in tacking our classes.

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Hahaha I can't believe he actually gave you a ticket. Do you actually think he'll have the gall to show up to the hearing if a date is set? And if he does, do you think a judge will actually take it seriously? Three inches into the road?! How dare you!

Strange that this comes on the same day as this news piece from KTVB about the police issuing more tickets to boost revenue. KTVB News Story
So I suppose I should say congratulations then, as a result of this ticket you've just purchased a hungry police officer another box of donuts. I'm riding in the middle of the lane all the way to work tomorrow.

"but bike commuting makes me smelly..."

Better it happened to you than me Dwight, I'd probably be in jail.  Although the Idaho law is nebulous, I can't imagine a better interpretation of "far right as practicable" than what you describe. 

It sounds like Dwight was somewhere near here.   In about this position I would begin a lane change to the left to stay out of the right turn only lane.   Prior to that I'd be riding to the left of the fog line because that ain't enough of a shoulder.  Wintertime debris in the shoulder only makes Dwight's case stronger, but I'm pretty sure I'd be where he describes regardless.

Wish I could have been there to see how you managed this conversation without it escalating into a trip in the squad car :).

Although a year-round bicycle commuter for the last eight years, I take a stronger view of "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb" than many bikers, it seems. Unless there's two feet of snow or a swarm of wasps in the shoulder, I'm irritated at bikers in the roadway. I see it a lot on Parkcenter (part of my commute) which has no bike lane but has an adjacent bike path nearly the full length. But still bicyclers choose the road.

Three inches does seem a minor thing to quibble over but so does "loose sand and gravel" after riding these past months in alternating slush, frozen slush (the worst) and mud.

On the other hand, I'm all for outlawing automobiles within the city limits altogether ...

That's what it says.  I know the code says "as far right as practicable", but this goes beyond "as far right as possible"

/dwight

Work to Live : Live to Ride : Ride to Work

Am I reading the ticket right, that you were cited for being 3 inches (3") into the road?

...danielo