Proposed bicycle legislation

Local cycling listservs are abuzz with comments on the proposed legislation being led by Senator Elliott Werk (D, District 17, Boise). As we’ve shared with our members over the past several months, TVCA and representatives of other cycling groups have been working with Senator Werk, Senator John McGee (R, District 10, Caldwell, Chairman of the Transportation Committee), and law enforcement on this bill.

As an organization, TVCA is very supportive of this proposed legislation and applaud the efforts of Senator Werk. We want you to be aware of the process that is underway, and what this bill represents for the cycling community.

First a little background. The process of putting together a bill like this in a very conservative and rural dominated House/Senate is a chore. From the very start, Senator Werk has looked at the balance he feels that is required to see any chance of passing this bill. The most critical components of the proposed bill are 1) establishing a 3-foot to pass standard in Idaho, and 2) making the harassment of a cyclist or pedestrian a misdemeanor.

The element that is creating some concern is the component that would require a cyclist who is obstructing three or more motorists to pull over when safe. This requirement would be similar to that of any slower moving vehicle (like a truck trailer or motor home). When a safe and adequate space exists, the slower moving vehicle would pull off and allow traffic behind them to pass. Keep in mind that if there is adequate space and visibility for the motorist to pass the cyclist, (even if this means crossing over the double yellow line) the motorist would NOT be considered obstructed.

Here is a quick summary of the package that is being put forward:

1. The legislation establishes 3-feet to pass as the Idaho standard
2. It empowers motorists to cross a double yellow to pass pedestrians and cyclists
3. It does not eliminate any other rights of road users
4. It establishes that motorists or others who threaten or harass cyclist or pedestrians are guilty of a misdemeanor
5. It establishes that pedestrians or cyclists who are obstructing 3 vehicles move over when safe for the cyclist to do so
6. It requires a brake on all bikes used on roadways
7. Establishes as funding mechanism for Safe Paths to Schools

A Cyclist is not obstructing traffic when

  • on a multi-lane road - motorists can pass in the next lane over
  • on a road with a center two-way left turn lane in which motorists can pass
  • there is sparse oncoming traffic and motorists can safely use the oncoming lane to pass
  • the cyclist is traveling at or near the speed limit or the speed of traffic

If this law is passed, it will be critical for TVCA to work with law enforcement agencies to ensure that what we teach cyclists is consistent with how they will enforce the law. We have already reached out to those agencies contributing to Senator Werks’ bill to begin the dialogue.

Bottom line is that passage of this bill would be a huge step forward for Idaho cyclists. Successfully writing and passing any bill in our state is a lengthily, complex process, and one that requires a balanced approach to secure the support needed for passage. We encourage you to understand the bill completely, and to support Senator Werk and his efforts.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

devil in the detail

I find the approach to law making and law enforcement you're advocating backwards. Laws should be clearly written, and citizens should understand them without having to "work with law enforcement agencies to ensure that what we teach cyclists is consistent with how they will enforce the law." If the law's meaning is not clear up front, then it needs to be changed by the Legislature before it is passed, not left to widely varying interpretations by every law enforcement agency and magistrate across the state.

As with most legislation, the devil is in the detail, and the simplified analysis in the post misses much of that detail. For example, the "obstructing" provision would apply on urban as well as rural roads (where current statute already applies). Those who live in smaller urban areas where two-lane roads with substandard width lanes carry most traffic face the potential of nearly constant entering and exiting the roadway in order to comply. To me that does "eliminate" a current road user right, or at least curtail it significantly and unreasonably. The post also fails to note that the funding mechanism for the Safe Routes fund is an additional civil penalty ($75) for bicyclists' and bicyclist/motorists' infractions. That would seem to provide an extra incentive for law enforcement to target bicyclists, perhaps unreasonably.

This legislative package is a mixed bag, and other than political expediency I don't see a reason to accept the bad with the good. There are some trade-offs being proposed that I'm not willing to support. I encourage you to read each of the bills carefully and support those provisions that you find good for cyclists and oppose those you do not.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.