In my view the most important change being proposed is what bicyclists refer to as the "mandatory sidepath" rule. The requirement for bicyclists to use a sidepath, when available, instead of the roadway, was added to the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944. After 32 years of experience with the consequences of that rule, it was removed from the UVC in 1976 and began to be repealed from the law books of the various states after that. Today, Utah is one of a small number of states that still impose the "mandatory sidepath" rule.

The rule still has the appeal that it did in 1944 to someone who has little experience with transportation cycling and little familiarity with bike/motor vehicle collision statistics or traffic flow principles. The common public misperception is that overtaking vehicles pose the greatest danger to cyclists on the roadway.

I am providing three documents which all assert or demonstrate that the most common hazards are in front of the cyclist at intersections with other streets and driveways. The safest way to deal with those real hazards is to ride a bicycle where motorists are looking out for conflicting traffic, not to ride where you will surprise them.

Wachtel and Lewiston reported in 1994 on analysis of police reports of bicycle accidents as compared to bicycle traffic levels and demographics which they recorded on the same roadways. Their safety recommendation was to "encourage bicyclists to travel on the roadway rather than on an adjacent sidewalk or sidepath."

Paul Schimek (1996) told an International Congress of planners that "a bicycle path immediately adjacent to a roadway but separated from it ("sidepath") is increasingly recognized as a dangerous type of facility."

The 1999 edition of AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities lists nine safety problems associated with sidepaths and concludes "shared use paths should not be considered a substitute for street improvements even when the path is located adjacent to the highway..."

Because Utah also has UCA 41-6-17 which does not prevent local authorities from "(h) regulating the operation of bicycles..." I agree that, if the state simply deletes the "mandatory sidepath" provision of UCA 41-6-87(3), it will leave all of the local governments free to perpetuate the mistake. The proposed change removes the blanket effect of the "mandatory sidepath" rule and requires localities to apply it only in specific instances by alerting bicyclists with signs at each specified path.

An alternative approach might be to simply eliminate the state requirement to use a sidepath and change UCA 41-6-17(h) to restrict local authorities ability to regulate bicyclists "on sidewalks" only. This would prevent local authorities from making the same error that is here being corrected at the state level.

The other changes proposed for UCA 41-6-87 are intended to clarify the legality of bicyclists entering intersections according to the accepted traffic engineering principles of "channelization by destination." The result will be fewer instances of unexpected conflicts caused by bicyclists travelling through an intersection from an unexpected position, such as on the right side of right-turning motor vehicles.

Finally, I support any clarification that bicyclists are welcome to use the shoulder rather than the rightmost travel lane so long as it does not create a REQUIREMENT to use the shoulder rather than a travel lane. Again, at intersections (including driveways) we do not want to mandate situations where right turning motor vehicles are to the left of straight travelling bicycles.

This change allows bicyclists to signal right turns in the "intuitive" way with the right hand. Currently, all signals must be given "from the left side of the vehicle." This makes perfect sense for car and truck drivers, except that nowadays car, trucks and motorcycles must have signal lights.

The left handed right turn signal is difficult to recognize when the cyclist is in a tuck or "racing" position because the left arm ends up being extended more forward than upward.

A right turn signal is used in two general situations: (1) when turning from the rightmost lane to a cross street or driveway, or (2) when changing lanes to the right on a multilane roadway.

In both of these situations, crossing, oncoming or following traffic which could be affected by the signaller's maneuver can see and intuitively understand the right handed right turn signal. Travelers directly on the left side of the cyclist will not readily see the signal but don't need to see it.

This change allows, but does not require, the right handed right turn signal. This optional way of signalling is not appropriate for motorcyclists because of the controls that are typically on the right handlebar grip.

The proposed change is consistent with the model Uniform Vehicle Code 11-606 provision:
11-606(2). Right turn - Hand and arm extended upward. Bicyclists may signal with right arm extended.

The paragraph (4) proposed for addition is intended to clarify that cyclists on sidewalks are expected to travel at typical pedestrian speeds especially when they approach points of conflict with motor vehicle traffic at crosswalks and driveways. Excessive speed on sidewalks is what contributes to the "he came out of nowhere" defense when a motorist is surprised too late by a fast moving bicycle rider.

This change removes the inconsistency in the minimum requirement for length of signalling for bicycles (100 feet) compared to motor vehicles (3 seconds). It is easier for everyone to estimate 3 seconds than to estimate 100 feet of roadway and this will actually increase the advance notice requirement for fast moving (over 22 mph) commuting and sport cyclists on the roadway.

It still acknowledges that the signal does not take priority over control and operation of the bicycle. Indeed the signal information is most useful to other travelers if it is given well before braking or turning begin. The changes also eliminate the rather silly looking, and generally ignored, requirement for the cyclist to hold an arm signal while waiting in a designated left turn lane.

The change to the taillight requirement catches up with some very useful technology for nighttime bicycle safety: the flickering LED taillight. Currently available LED taillights are bright, reliable, economical and distinctively recognized by motorists at night as a bicycle feature, Section UCA 41-6-140 is also changed to list this allowable exception to the general prohibition on the use of flashing lights.

This change is consistent with UVC 12-705:
A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by the foregoing sections. These lights and/or reflectors may be LED or regular, steady or flashing, as long as they comply with the requirements or limitations of the department These lights may emit a steady or flashing light.

This change merely clarifies that the prohibition on vehicular operation on sidewalks does not apply to bicycles. I believe that bicycles should be allowed on sidewalks, in general and especially for children in residential neighborhoods, even though bicyclists should not be encouraged or required to ride on sidewalks routinely, because sidewalk riding still has some risk of unexpected conflict with motor vehicles.