Kansas Cyclist - Kansas Bicycle Guide and Reference

Lawmakers in the state of Missouri are once again considering a law that would require motorists to pass bicycles by at least three feet:

The Bicycle Safety Bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Sutherland and supported by MoBikeFed in 2005 originally included a 3 foot minimum passing distance. However, at the insistence of the insurance industry–who feared a specific, concrete legal requirement would lead to more claims against their customers–the specific three foot requirement was removed at that time.

Missouri’s current law simply states that motorists “shall leave a safe distance, when passing the bicycle, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.”

Most motorists already pass bicyclists with a distance greater than three feet. However the addition of the three foot language to Missouri law would help clarify the issue of exactly what motorists are doing wrong when it comes to court cases. [ read more from the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation ]

And the debate is not just in halls of government. Everyday cyclists are voicing their opinions as well.

Over at Carbon Trace, Andy Cline opposes the bill and makes an interesting argument (HB 1250 Must Be Stopped): “I know there are many well-meaning bicycle advocates that think this law is a good idea. I respectfully disagree. I base my opinion on experience riding in traffic. While 3 feet might be fine if a car is passing at 25 mph, it is most certainly too close at 45 mph. This law treats all roads, speeds, and traffic conditions equally. It is far better that HB1250 fail than we end up with a 3-foot law.”

In I Want More Than Three Feet, he writes: “While it may seem that such a law seeks to protect bicyclists, I think it will instead make us less safe. Three feet is not enough room. But three feet is all you’ll get once drivers learn there’s a “3-foot law” in Missouri. In other words, cars will begin passing you closer!”

What do you think?

Does specifying a minimum passing distance actually encourage motorists to pass you closer than if the wording of the law is the vague “safe passing distance”?

For what it’s worth, there are currently 14 states — Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin — currently have 3-foot passing laws on the books, and several more (including Missouri and Iowa) are working towards some version of such a law (see More states consider 3-foot bicycle-passing laws in 2010 from BikingBis).

Here in Kansas, I don’t believe lawmakers have ever officially considered the issue. Ideas have been floated (see Kansas Bicycle Safety Law Proposal), but that’s as far as it’s gotten so far…

In Iowa, the state legislature is once again considering a Bicycle Safety Bill. Here are the main provisions:

A House subcommittee has begun work on a proposal that would expand state law governing vehicle passing rules to include overtaking a bicycle by requiring a motorist to pass a bicycle on the left while staying at least 3 feet from the bicycle.

The provision also requires the overtaking vehicle to maintain a safe distance away from another vehicle or bike before returning to the right lane of a highway. The overtaken vehicle would be prohibited from speeding up to prevent the passing vehicle from moving back into the right lane.

The proposed House language also provides protections for a “vulnerable user” of a roadway, crosswalk or shoulder that would apply to a pedestrian, person riding an animal, the operator of a tractor or machine that doesn’t have an enclosed cab, a skateboarder, a rollerblader/rollerskater, highway worker, a person riding an electric scooter or bicyclist.

The new protection applies whether the vulnerable user is using the highway in accordance with the new code chapter or not, although the person could be fined or cited for violating a separate law that might apply.

The proposed House language states a vehicle operator cannot drive carelessly or unnecessarily close to a vulnerable user or knowingly throw or project an object or substance at the user. [ read more ]

According to the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, Bike Safety Bill Passes Committee:

The Bicycle Safety Bill has passed the House Human Resources committee. There were 11 votes in favor of the bill and 8 opposed. The votes were cast upon party lines.

The debate on the bill was brutal. You’ve heard this stuff before – bikes don’t pay for roads, we run stop signs, we don’t signal turns, we don’t have lights. Legislation is often ugly, but this was pretty tough.

Several amendments were offered. One was accepted. There was an amendment to implements of husbandry exempting them from 5′ passing. We didn’t like the amendment, but the same thing happened in the Iowa Senate.

Rejected amendments included:

1. Wearing 50% yellow, orange, florescent green-yellow at night.
2. Wearing 50% reflective clothing at night.
3. Cyclists may ride two abreast and may be exempt when on state/local approved events.
4. Cyclists must be 6′ from edge of road and when being passed must move within 3′ of edge.
5. Cyclists must wear mirrors (this includes kids and trails)

We expect more amendments. We are even working to see if there are amendments that are favorable to bike safety. Both proponents and opponents of the bike safety bill state that safety is their highest priority. We think there were many good ideas discussed at the committee. Many may need some changes in language to be in line with the uniform vehicle code and common language used in other states.

In 2009, a similar bill passed the state senate, but stalled in the house. Rep. Brian Quirk, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said he would give the bill a “50-50 shot” at House passage this year.

Here are some reactions to the legislation and commentary from around the state:

• House debates bike safety bill: “All bicyclists on Iowa roads would have to wear bright colors to make them more visible to motorists under an amendment offered by Republican state lawmakers.”

• Why Rep. Baudler is wrong on the bike safety bill: “This is a blame the victim approach. Many of the fatal crashes over the past year, the auto driver stated ‘I didn’t see them’. That really means that I wasn’t paying attention to driving. Just ask Leesa Shoemaker who was hit near Polk City. She was riding right, lit up like a tree, and still was hit. Oh, and the driver got a $35 ticket. “

• Legislation isn’t the answer for bike safety: “Instead of trying to pass laws that won’t be enforced, bicycle advocates should focus their efforts on educating both drivers and bicyclists.”

• Legislation will help promote bicycle safety : “Iowans, including commuters, recreational riders, and children riding to school and for play, need and deserve the provisions of the bicycle safety bill.”

• Move the bill and increase traffic safety for cyclists: “This is not a partisan issue. This is a traffic safety issue. We are bicyclists who want a minimum of 5′ of passing distance. We don’t want to be “buzzed” and we don’t want to have objects thrown at us. We believe cyclists should obey the traffic rules too.”

• The truth of SF117 Amendment: “It’s sad that we need to have a law like this, but it is necessary so those who have a beef with cyclist and others rights to use the highway can be delt in a fair and judicial manner.”

• A Battle Won, but More Battles to Come: “This blog author is very happy the bill has made it this far and hopes to see it continue on and be signed into law. I also like the fact the foolish proposed amendments were not made a part of the bill. I understand there is give and take but these amendments are ridiculous.”

• Bicycle safety debated again in the legislature: “What we do need is some sort of deterrent, some sort of strong message out of this building across the countryside to be more vigilant, to share the road and that’s what’s really important.”

Good luck, Iowa!

Bicycle/Pedestrian stakeholders are invited to attend a meeting with the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WAMPO) Project Team regarding the Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 (MTP 2035). MTP 2035 is a long-range transportation plan for the region that will cover all modes of transportation for goods and people. MTP 2035 will define policies, programs, and projects to be accomplished over the next 25 years.

The purpose of the meeting with the stakeholders will be to discuss work on the Plan completed to date; potential projects to be listed in the Plan; and to get additional input, feedback, and other pertinent information or concerns regarding MTP 2035.

January 12, 2010, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Director’s Conference Room – WAMPO Offices
10th Floor, Wichita City Hall
455 N. Main Street
Wichita, KS 67202

Please RSVP to Mary Malone at Wilbur Smith Associates: mmalone@wilbursmith.com to let them know if you plan to attend.

Here’s your chance to let your voice be heard for better bike/ped facilities in Wichita — speak up!

KanBikeWalk, a non-profit, statewide organization whose mission is to promote a safe bicycling and walking environment for Kansans through education and advocacy, is holding their second annual meeting on October 31st.

As a 100% volunteer organization, KanBikeWalk is reaching out to the bicycle and walking communities, and asking for your support in helping to make Kansas a safe and friendly state to bicycle and walk in. Please join them!

The KanBikeWalk annual meeting takes place on Saturday, October 31st, 2009 from 1:00-4:00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites (221 E. Kellogg, Wichita, KS 67202 (see map)).

In addition, prior to the meeting, KanBikeWalk has organized a Pre-Meeting Bicycle Ride. It starts at 10:00 a.m. from the Holiday Inn, and is a leisurely, no-drop, social ride that covers about 15 miles through the city of Wichita, exploring the Arkansas River bike path and a number of downtown Wichita landmarks, including the pedestrain bridges over the Arkansas and Little Arkansas Rivers and the “Keeper of the Plains” monument.

For more information about the KanBikeWalk annual meeting, visit KanBikeWalk.com.

If you’re planning to attend the ride and/or the meeting, please RSVP to gksport@gmail.com.

From the League of American Bicyclists:

Transportation Enhancements are the largest federal source of bicycle and pedestrian funding and they are under attack.

We need your help – TODAY!

Senator Coburn (R-OK) is offering two amendments to the FY10 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill that will strike funding for transportation enhancements. The two amendments are S. Amendment 2370 and S. Amendment 2371.

The Transportation Enhancement program has provided between one half and three-quarters of all Federal funding invested in bicycling and walking improvements in the last 20 years. More than $250 million is at stake in fiscal year 2010 – if Coburn’s amendment is successful it will affect hundreds of trail projects, sidewalks, bicyclist education programs, bike rack on bus programs, and roadway improvements for bicyclists.

S. Amendment 2370 prohibits funding for transportation enhancements if the Highway Trust Fund does not contain amounts sufficient to cover unfunded highway authorizations.

S. Amendment 2371 allows states to opt out of the 10 percent set aside rule that require states to spend at least 10 percent of their surface transportation funding on transportation enhancements.

We expect the amendments to be offered and voted on during Senate floor debate Wednesday, September 16.

Please call your Senator immediately and urge them to vote NO on S. Amendment 2370 and S. Amendment 2371 to the FY10 transportation appropriations bill.

As a side note, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn’s name has come up here before, when he picked on bike/ped projects in his “2008: Worst Waste of the Year” reports, which specifically targeted the fine people at the Fort Collins Bike Library. Here’s what I wrote back then:

As a physician, you would expect Senator Coburn to recognize the value of bicycling in improving and maintaining public health. And as a Senator, you would expect him to recognize the value of bicycling in reducing our nation’s dependence on oil, reducing air and noise pollution, reducing traffic congestion, and improving roadway safely. But apparently not.

Doesn’t sound like much has changed (and yeah, he’s still using stolen clip art in his report).

So please, call your Senator today, and let your voice be heard to save critical bike/ped funding!

Though our society and our communities are undeniably car-centric, there is perhaps some hope that things can change. From the Kansas City Star:

Residents living in the Kansas suburbs are distinctly unhappy with their lack of alternatives to driving, according to a new poll.

The poll conducted by regional transportation planners found that while most residents are generally satisfied with traffic flow, they blame what little congestion we have on our dependence on cars.

The poll of about 1,100 residents in Johnson, Wyandotte, Leavenworth, Douglas and Miami counties showed that roughly 45 percent of those surveyed said our over-dependence on the car contributed to “transportation problems” in their area.

About half of those surveyed — about 46 percent — were dissatisfied with availability of bike lanes on the Kansas side of the metro area.

Although this study came out nearly two months ago, I don’t think it’s received the attention it deserves.

People want to drive less. People want more bike lanes.

That seems to be a rather significant finding.

Of course, there’s no consensus on what to do about it: “40 percent of the residents blamed poorly planned development for transportation problems in the Kansas suburbs,” but “while residents seemed upset about the lack of a good mass transit system and the availability of bike lanes, their solutions for easing travel seemed to mostly focus on road building,” and “Nearly one in four said widening existing roads was their top solution for making travel easy. Roughly another third said building news highways, connecting roads or improving intersections were the best ways to improve our ability to get around.”

The poll was done as part of the 5-County Regional Transportation Planning Study by the Kansas Department of Transportation, the Mid-America Regional Council and transportation planners in Lawrence and Douglas County. You can read the study for yourself: Final Residents Survey Report of Transportation Planning Issues and Opportunities (PDF)

What do you think? Are you satisfied with our current transportation infrastructure? Are you looking for alternatives to driving?

Or are you already using your bike and public transit to get around? What’s been your experience?

With Federal stimulus funds available, Kansas City, Missouri has a chance to transform itself and move toward its stated goal of becoming a bicycle-friendly community. But they have a long way to go, and its not clear whether city leaders have the vision and strength of will to make it happen.

Kansas City, Missouri Mayor Mark Funkhouser comments on the bicycle-friendliness of his city:

“We haven’t made an effort to be bike friendly, and we’re not,” says Funkhouser, who calls Kansas City one of the least bike-friendly cities in the country.

And the stats agree with him. In 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau counted just fifty people who commuted to work every day on a bicycle in Kansas City. But Mayor Funkhouser says that no one has ever even really tried to come up with a plan to fix that problem.

“What there have been grand plans for is the Power and Light District. And there’s the Power and Light District. There have been grand plans for the Sprint Center. And there’s the Sprint Center. There have been grand plans for stuff like that, but I don’t think that bicycling has ever been on the radar screen,” says Funkhouser.

But Mayor Funkhouser is confident that he can change that. He wants Kansas City to become a platinum-rated bicycle city by 2020. That’s the highest rating given by the League of American Bicyclists. That means, for starters, Kansas City would have to install more bike lanes, more off-street bike trails, and a whole lot more bicycle racks.

“If we’re going to make this a green city, we’re going to have to be more bicycle-friendly. I’ve seen cities in Europe where at the train station there are thousands of bicycles on racks. That’s where we’re going someday,” says Funkhouser.

“This is the least bike friendly place I’ve ever been to or even seen. I’m flabbergasted about how behind the times Kansas City is with being non-automobile transportation friendly,” says Ben Clayman, who bikes about five miles to work nearly every day.

Kansas City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, Deb Ridgway (who we interviewed on Episode 3 of the Kansas Cyclist Podcast), said “We just have never installed things like bike lanes and bike route signs and all the things that help to encourage people to show that this is a good place to bike and walk.”

The Kansas City Star recently wrote (in Put KC on the path to a greener, healthier future) that “Federal stimulus funds are creating opportunities for cities to transform themselves with alternative transportation. Few cities need transforming more than Kansas City. The City Council should seize an opportunity presented to its transportation committee Thursday to move forward with an ambitious plan of new bike and pedestrian lanes, paths and routes.”

Kansas City’s Bike Plan, calls for 200 miles of on-street bike routes and an additional 50 miles of off-street bike paths by 2012, but the bike plan is competing with other local transportation projects for a limited amount of federal stimulus dollars.

And that is the issue that has always prevented Kansas City from becoming more bike friendly. In a town that loves big SUV’s, bikes have always been considered something of an afterthought. But Mayor Funkhouser insists that bikes are one of his top priorities. “For short trips of two or three miles to the grocery store, we ought not be firing up the SUV.”

Read more from Kansas City’s public radio station, KCUR: Bicyclists Aim to Make Kansas City More Bike Friendly They also have an audio version of the story, which you can listen to on their site. KCBike.info has addition coverage: Federal stimulus money could fund huge advancement in KC bike/ped program. See also: Kansas City’s Platinum Vision.

Alan Apel, a League Cycling Instructor (LCI) certified by the League of American Bicyclists, is preparing a proposal for updating Kansas statutes related to bicycling (see the current cycling laws here), and he’s looking for some input from the bicycling community.

Here are his proposed statutes:

A number of states have revised or added protection for cyclists in recent years. I would like to suggest some or all the following put into state law here in Kansas.

Safe Operating Distance: A driver of a motor vehicle must at all times maintain a safe operating distance between the motor vehicle and a bicycle. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give an appropriate signal, shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.

The operator of a motor vehicle when overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, shall leave a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet (3’) and shall maintain such clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.

Anti-Harassment of Cyclists: It is unlawful to harass, taunt, or maliciously throw an object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

Clearer signaling for cyclists:

1. 1. A bicyclist shall indicate a right turn by extending the left arm upward, by raising the left arm to the square, or by extending the right arm horizontally to the right.
   2. A bicyclist shall indicate a left turn by extending the left arm horizontally.
   3. A bicyclist shall indicate stopping or decreasing speed by extending the left arm or the right arm downward.
2. A bicyclist is not required to give signals provided for in subsection (A) continuously if the hand or arm is needed to control the bicycle.

Clarification of lane positioning:

1. Except as provided in subsection (B), every bicyclist operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. A bicyclist may, but is not required to, ride on the shoulder of the roadway in order to comply with the requirements of this subsection.
2. A bicyclist may ride in a lane other than the right-hand lane if only one lane is available that permits the bicyclist to continue on his intended route.
3. When operating a bicycle upon a roadway, a bicyclist must exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
4. Bicyclists riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Elimination of the mandatory sidepath law and clarification of right-of-way in bike lanes

1. For purposes of this section, ‘bicycle lane’ means a portion of the roadway or a paved lane separated from the roadway that has been designated by striping, pavement markings, and signage for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
2. Whenever a bicycle lane has been provided adjacent to a roadway, operators of:
   1. motor vehicles may not block the bicycle lane to oncoming bicycle traffic and shall yield to a bicyclist in the bicycle lane before entering or crossing the lane; and
   2. bicycles are required to ride in the bicycle lane except when necessary to pass another person riding a bicycle or to avoid an obstruction in the bicycle lane. However, bicyclists may ride on the roadway when there is only an adjacent recreational bicycle path available instead of a bicycle lane.

Imposition of more severe penalties for motor vehicles that violate provisions pertaining to bicycles:

1. Except as otherwise provided, in the absence of another violation being cited, a violation of this article by the driver of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil fine of up to one hundred dollars unless a bicyclist is injured as a result of the violation.
2. In the absence of another violation being cited, a person driving a motor vehicle who violates a provision of this article and the violation is the proximate cause of a:
   1. minor injury to a bicyclist, must be assessed a civil fine of up to five hundred dollars; or
   2. great bodily injury, to a bicyclist, must be assessed a civil fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

Definition of a bicycle: A bicycle is a device propelled solely by pedals, operated by one or more persons, and having two or more wheels, except childrens’ tricycles.” (This revision ensures that adult bicycles using more than two-wheels are covered by the statutes.)

Any comments or suggestions?

Feel free to share your thoughts here, or contact Alan via his LCI page.

The following is a rather straightforward, sensible, and encouraging statement from the Urban Policy section of whitehouse.gov:

Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities: Our communities will better serve all of their residents if we are able to leave our cars to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. President Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account.

Of course, it’s not purely an “urban” issue — our suburbs, small towns, and rural communities need to be livable and sustainable just as much as our cities do.

But let us hope this positive vision comes to pass, and let each of us do our own part in making sure that it does.

KanBikeWalk’s first Advocacy Day is scheduled for February 4th, 2009 at the state capitol in Topeka, Kansas.

KanBikeWalk, whose mission is to promote safe bicycling and walking in Kansas, works with the state legislature to craft laws that can reduce incidences of injury and death for all road users, and encourage walking and bicycling as modes of transportation, recreation, tourism, and sport.

Please join us as we meet with state-level elected officials to ask for their help in creating a more bikeable and walkable Kansas. When you speak personally with your own elected officials and they hear you talk about your passion for these issues, it can make a tremendously positive impression.

Our elected officials all know that someone, somewhere supports better bicycling and walking. But they usually think in the back of their mind that it’s someone somewhere else — on the other side of the state, or in a big city, or a small city, or maybe people who live in pleasant rural areas.

So when they meet you and make that personal connection with someone from their hometown, it really changes things.

We will make personal visits to Kansas legislators and their staff in the capitol. These personal visits are by far the most productive way for us to build support for bicycling and walking issues in our state. KanBikeWalk will provide printed materials you can use as a guide when talking, and can leave with them for later review.

If you’re unable to attend Advocacy Day in person, you can still help! Emailing or calling your legislators can also be a very effective way to make your voice heard. (If you’re not sure who represents you, you can use the Find Your Legislator app to check.)

If you’re interested in helping out, please visit KanBikeWalk.com.