Mr. Chairman,
My thanks to the committee for agreeing to consider changes to Utah's bicycle laws, for the efforts of Ben Christensen in drafting these revisions, and for the oportunity to speak briefly in support of those proposed changes today.

I am an "Effective Cycling" Instructor for the League of American Bicyclists. This is a safety program rather like the water safety program of the American Red Cross. I also chair the Cache MPO Pedestrian/Bike Advisory Committee and I am the Safety Officer for the Cache Veloists Bicycle Touring Club. While I am not here officially representing L.A.B. or Cache M.P.O., I do represent the consensus of transportation bicyclists in my area.

The proposed changes are all consistent with the Effective Cycling motto that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as operators of vehicles." That motto is consistent with the Utah provision that cyclists have all of the "rights and duties" of the operator of a vehicle.

The changes all deal with safety and efficiency issues that should contribute to making cycling a more viable means of transportation.

Of primary concern is the current requirement to use an available sidepath instead of the roadway. The documentation that I am providing here shows that this once common provision has been discredited by safety studies and has been rescinded by most states.

On behalf of cyclists around the state, thank you for considering these issues. I would be glad to answer any questions now or at a later time.

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 After 32 years of experience with the consequences of that rule, it was removed from the UVC in 1976 and began to be repealed from the law books of the various states after that.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 only about a half dozen 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 acidents 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 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 41-6-87(3), it will leave all of the local governments free to perpetuate the mistake. The proposed change (with proposed amendment) removes the blanket effect of the "mandatory sidepath" rule and requires localities to apply it only in specific instances by alerting bicyclists with signs after an engineering/safety study. I hope and expect that facts such as those presented here will result in the vast majority of such studies yielding a recommendation against designating a particular sidepath for mandatory use.

An alternative approach might be to simply eliminate the state requirement to use a sidepath and change 41-6-17(h) to restrict local authorities ability to regulate bicyclists "on sidewalks" only.

The other changes proposed for 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.

Finally, I support the 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.

Some have objected to this proposed change because it results in a signal being given where other travelers will not see it. Let's examine the variety of circumstances and see if this objection has any value.

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 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 41-6-140 is also changed to list this allowable exception to the general prohibition on the use of flashing lights.

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 expecially for children in residential neighborhoods, even though bicyclists should not be encouraged or required to ride on sidewalks routinely.

This proposed change is undoubtedly the most controversial of all of the changes being proposed. This modification follows the lead in Idaho State Law to allow bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.

It does not change the priority of the various traffic flows at intersections. It merely eliminates the requirement to come to a complete stop if, upon yielding, there is no conflicting traffic.

In many cases, a bicyclist must detach one foot from the pedal mechanism when coming to a complete stop. When starting up again, the cyclist is distracted at some point from the traffic situation, while reattaching the foot to the pedal. This distraction can cause the cyclist to wait for a longer break in crossing traffic, adding to the delay of traffic behind the cyclist. Allowing the cyclist to yield, without creating this additional delay, may facilitate the flow of traffic.

The bicycle does not protrude beyond it's driver's eyes into the intersection as much as a typical motor vehicle does. That length difference provides a space in which the bicycle can be moving forward while its rider is assessing the traffic situation. In fact, this is about what a great many experienced cyclists actually do in spite of the current law. They slow down, assess the situation, yield to any conflicting traffic, and then proceed through the intersections without necessarily coming to a full stop.

There are probably two main objections to this revision in the law: 1) the resulting actions of cyclists may be unsafe and 2) this "special" treatment is in contrast to the rest of the efforts of cycling advocates to obtain "equal" treatment under the law and from fellow travelers.

No doubt, just as other laws are incompletely understood, this proposed law could become understood by the public to mean simply "look out, bikes don't have to stop at stop signs" without understanding that cyclists at stop signs must still yield to conflicting traffic. If the rule is presented as the slogan "bikes yield at stop signs" we should be successful at conveying the intent as one concept rather than as two.

According to Idaho's Legislative Reference Librarian, Kristin Ford [KFord@lso.state.id.us], that provision was included with a variety of traffic code changes in Idaho in 1982. As far as I have determined, Idahoans have been satisfied with the general result. Mark McNeese [MMcNeese@itd.state.id.us], Idaho Transportation Department, Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator wrote this to me about the law:

"When this law was passed (a number of years ago and before my time as the Bike/Ped Planner) it was an "end around" that few anticipated. In retrospect it is not a bad law."

If you watch people on bikes around town, you will see a general disregard for, or ignorance of, the rules that apply to them. Some of this is "scofflaw" behavior because they believe that the laws don't apply to cyclists and do not protect cyclists. Some behavior is because of mistaken decisions about what sort of cycling behavior is safe; wrong side riding, sidewalk riding and gutter hugging are among the result. It may be that a law seen as beneficial to cyclists could encourage some cyclists to trust and respect the law. In other cases, a public effort to increase awareness in the safety benefits of all bicycle laws is probably needed to improve compliance.

Bob Bayn                                 (435)752-8386(h)
1500 Highland Dr                         (435)797-2396(w)
North Logan, UT 84341-2142                     bob.bayn@usu.edu