Op-Ed: NJ Legislature - Parking Trumps Pedestrian Safety

It's amazing what the New Jersey Legislature is capable of doing if you're not watching them close enough.

Unbeknownst to some of the closest followers of all things bicycle and pedestrian in New Jersey (yeah, that includes me), the Legislature quietly passed Senate Bill 1082 (A1775). This law gives municipalities the authority to reduce the distance where it is illegal to park in front of STOP signs and on either side of crosswalks, if the municipality passes an ordinance allowing them the authority to do so.

According to language straight out of the bill itself "The purpose of this bill (law) is to address parking shortages." Never is there a mention how this bill might compromise New Jersey's already shaky pedestrian safety record or that of traffic safety as a whole.

Prior to this new law, the standard distances all across New Jersey were that it was illegal to park 50 feet in front of a STOP sign and 25 feet on either side of a crosswalk. This was done for good reason. To stop for a STOP sign or for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, one needs to see the STOP sign or pedestrian. At a time in the past, distances of 50 and 25 feet were made into law because they were thought to be the minimum safe parking distances to create a sight line by which drivers would be able to see a STOP sign or pedestrian and to be able to react to them.

Now the new law does prohibit changing these standards in school zones and requires best engineering judgment. Still, reducing these sight lines anywhere will undoubtedly have a some negative effect on pedestrian and traffic safety. And it wouldn't be unfathomable to imagine that best engineering judgment could be compromised when local politicians are being pressured to create more parking spaces. Plus a loss of a standard statewide practice has the potential to create even greater confusion as to where it is legally permissible to park a car.

Op-Ed: Is this legal? #2

Photo of riders on on Meyersville Road in Chatham Township by Anthony Albanese via the Independent Press. Another photo of legally operating cyclists can be see in the original story here.

Well it depends who you ask and how you interpret NJ Provision - 39:4-14.2. Keeping to right; exceptions; single file.

As cyclist with 20 years adult riding experience and an LCI I will say that I see no illegal actions being perpetrated by these cyclists. None of the cyclists are riding two abreast. The lanes are very narrow, the road turns to the left and goes down a blind hill. From the photo it is clearly evident that the driver of the car can not see far enough up the road to pass even one cyclist safely, even if the cyclists moved all the way to the far right of the lane. According to the League of American Bicyclists Traffic Skills training, any situation where the lane is too narrow and/or sight-lines blocked to allow a driver to see far enough up the road to pass safely, the cyclist should move to the left to take the lane to prevent the overtaking vehicle from passing until the road conditions make it is safe for driver of the vehicle to do so.

Part b of NJ Provision 39:4-14.2 says that cyclists may move left to "avoid ... other hazardous conditions that make it impracticable to ride at the right side of the roadway." I interpret this phase as a catch all. Since it would be hazardous for the cyclist to move to the far right to allow a driver the possibility to pass dangerously, then the cyclist has every right to move left, take the lane and prevent the possibility of a dangerous/"hazardous" pass.

NJ Provision -39:4-14.2. Keeping to right; exceptions; single file

Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; provided, however, that any person may move to the left under any of the following situations:

(a) to make a left turn from a left-turn lane or pocket;

(b) to avoid debris, drains or other hazardous conditions that make it impracticable to ride at the right side of the roadway;

(c) to pass a slower moving vehicle;

(d) to occupy any available lane when traveling at the same speed as other traffic;

(e) to travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded.

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded, but otherwise shall ride in single file except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Now all that being said, I do feel that it is somewhat rude of cyclists to ride in groups so large that they make it impossible for drivers to pass for extended long stretches of roadway. We in the bicycling community will not win over the hearts and minds of drivers and the general public by forcing others to wait for you at 18mph for a half a mile or more. If you do ride in large groups be prepared to slow down, move over and let motorists pass every so often if need be. Even though we bicyclists have every right to the road there is no reason to abuse that right.

I also interpret the New Jersey law in a way that an overtaking driver has every legal right to pass some of the bicyclists and then move back into the lane, splitting the group in two (but then again there is nothing in Title 39 that says a driver of a vehicle can pass any slower vehicle, motorized or not, in a no passing zone). Bicyclists drafting off one another may consider that to be extremely dangerous and aggressive but then again drafting 6 inches off another rider's wheel is technically tailgating and also illegal.

Also and very importantly, while I as a cyclist and an LCI interpret NJ Provision 39:4-14.2 to give bicyclists the right to move to the left in the above photoed situation, law enforcement and the courts don't always see it that way. Don't be surprised if you are ticketed and found guilty in court even if you are a just a solitary cyclists that moves to take the lane in a similar situation as described above. However, if you are ticketed I do strongly advise that you fight this in court with the hope that you can set a precedent.

This photo is part of a protracted debate going on in the Independent Press (covering the Summit area in Union County) attacking bicyclists' rights to the road. Follow the links below to read the ongoing debate (with some truely ridiculous anti-bicycling arguments) in the Independent Press (all link courtesy of the NJ Bicycle & Pedestrian News Digest).

A danger in spandex, bike riding on Chatham's narrow roads
Independent Press • Friday, December 4, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yzp252d

A biking tragedy waiting to happen
Independent Press • Friday, December 4, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ylq8dch

Bikes, cars need to share the road
Independent Press • Friday, December 4, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ylaq8xw

Fear the car more than the bike
Independent Press • Friday, December 4, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yk95xp6

Drivers (and bikers) have rules
Independent Press • Thursday, December 17, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ygog4rz

A little caution goes a long way
Independent Press • Thursday, December 17, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/y8oq384

Patience is key to road safety
Independent Press • Tuesday, December 22, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yk3zljo

Cyclists, drivers can coexist
Independent Press • Wednesday, December 30, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/yahgmcs

Cycling 'packs' block the road (author is a cyclist)
(Note – Could not find full-page letter author refers to)
Independent Press • Thursday, December 31, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/ykmg2tw

Photos of bike riders on Meyersville Road in Chatham Township proves point
Independent Press • Sunday, January 17, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/y9wj25a

Interesting Statute of the Month - No Charge for Bikes

I was doing a little research for work today and came across this most interesting New Jersey Statute:

48:12-108. Transportation of bicycles as baggage; penalty for refusal
The holder of a ticket issued by any railroad company entitling him to transportation on its railroad or ferries as a passenger shall have the right in lieu of other baggage, to the transportation as baggage without further charge of one bicycle to and from the place designated in such ticket. Such transportation shall be on the same train or boat with the passenger where facilities for the transportation of baggage then exist on such train or boat.

The passenger shall remove any lantern from such bicycle but not any usual bicycle bell or cyclometer nor need he crate, cover or otherwise protect the bicycle. No railroad company transporting bicycles pursuant to this section shall be liable for damage done to any bell, cyclometer or like attachments.

Any railroad company refusing to accept for transportation or to transport bicycles as baggage as required by this section shall pay to such passenger ten dollars for each offense, to be recovered in an action at law in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The archaic language in the statute makes me believe that it dates back a hundred years or so; back when the League of American Wheelmen (former name of the League of American Bicyclists) and its local chapters were a political force to be reckoned with.

Still, I'm curious. Does this mean that NJ TRANSIT has a statutory responsibility to transport one's bicycle, free of charge at ALL TIMES? Also, does the statute require ferry companies to do the same? Are ferry companies exempt since all that I'm aware of operate services that cross state lines or are they require so long as the service connects to a New Jersey port?

This law, as old as it may be, is still on the books, so it would seem to still have some teeth. I'm sure there is something in the statutes that organized NJ TRANSIT that exempts it from this statute, however other passenger trains services (tourist) and ferry services are probably still on the hook for this. Maybe we all have 10 bucks coming our way!

Are there any legal scholars out there who might know the answer?