Category Archives: Legal

A simple reminder.


A bike, riding far to the right is not an inconvenience. It is a courtesy. To you the driver. If you cannot pass them safely and legally, do not pass them. When you do, you become the reason there are riders that will not keep to the right explicitly to prevent you from making a dangerous pass.

To be clear, both riders are doing as the legally are allowed.

The relevant law is 40-6-294 – Riding on Roadways and Bicycle Paths

The law itself is pretty clear. Paragraph A defines the “hazards to safe cycling” as used in the later paragraphs, but essentially states that anything that can be deemed a hazard, shall be.

Paragraph B and the associated subsections define the where to ride as “As Far Right As Practicable” which for clarity does not mean “Possible”. The subsection all define the exceptions to the need to keep far right ( above and beyond what the rider deems as practicable ). These exceptions are important to know, and while most should be common sense: turning left, traveling at traffic speeds and passing other vehicles.

However, there are two exceptions that need to be examined specifically.

There is a right turn only lane and the person operating the bicycle is not turning right

This is a big one, because it precludes an action that many, perhaps even most drivers believe is courtesy, and should be practiced by road cyclists. In essence, it says that a bicycle may NOT use a right turn lane to give up space to a passing driver if they are not turning. Worse, though is that under 40-6-291

Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 40-6-50, any person operating a bicycle may ride upon a paved shoulder; provided, however, that such person shall not be required to ride upon a paved shoulder.

A cyclist may ride on a paved shoulder, though they are not required to, but if that shoulder becomes a right turn lane, they have to move from the shoulder, into the travel lane until the turn lane ends.

This violates the single most important rule of road safety: Move Predictably.

The lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle

An exception that essentially undoes the foundation of “Far Right As Practicable”, because there are virtually no bike usable roads in the state that meet the width required to “share safely with a motor vehicle”.

How wide would that lane need to be to meet that criteria?

Well, to answer that question, we need to know the maximum width of a motor vehicle, which is 8 feet 6 inches. We also need to know the width of a bicycle, which is 2 feet 6 inches. That says that the absolute bare minimum would be 11 feet, but that does not address the legal definition of safe passing distance, which is 3 feet. The quick math shows 14 feet as the minimum width required to ALWAYS meet that criteria.

But extend that a step further. The average width of a motor vehicle in the US is a little above 6 feet, largely courtesy of the rise of SUV and truck sales, and assume that the cyclist is willing to ride on the white line reducing their effective width to 1 foot 3 inches. Even at those numbers, most roads have lanes that are just 11 feet wide.

Meaning that a cyclist is legally within their right to ride pretty much anywhere in the lane they need to create a safe space to ride.

Last but not least, there is NO stipulation for single file

In fact, the laws that establish two abreast as the legal way for bicycles to ride do not even provide a local override stipulation as the sidewalk use law does, so even the ‘single file’ signage that has been placed in some areas of the state have no legal basis, nor is there language to allow a county, city, or public works department to enforce single file on bicycles.

The entire law is posted below for your perusal.

a. As used in this Code section, the term “hazards to safe cycling” includes, but shall not be limited to, surface debris, rough pavement, drain grates which are parallel to the side of the roadway, parked or stopped vehicles, potentially opening car doors, or any other objects which threaten the safety of a person operating a bicycle.

b. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when:

  1. Turning left;
  2. Avoiding hazards to safe cycling;
  3. The lane is too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle;
  4. Traveling at the same speed as traffic;
  5. Exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction; or
  6. There is a right turn only lane and the person operating the bicycle is not turning right; provided, however, that every person operating a bicycle away from the right side of the roadway shall exercise reasonable care and shall give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road.

c. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, or when a special event permit issued by a local governing authority permits riding more than two abreast.

d. Whenever a usable bicycle path has been provided adjacent to a roadway and designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders, then the appropriate governing authority may require that bicycle riders use such bicycle path and not use those sections of the roadway so specified by such local governing authority. The governing authority may be petitioned to remove restrictions upon demonstration that the bicycle path has become inadequate due to capacity, maintenance, or other causes.

e. Bicycle paths subject to the provisions of subsection (d) of this Code section shall at a minimum be required to meet accepted guidelines, recommendations, and criteria with respect to planning, design, operation, and maintenance as set forth by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and such bicycle paths shall provide accessibility to destinations equivalent to the use of the roadway.

f. Any person operating a bicycle in a bicycle lane shall ride in the same direction as traffic on the roadway.

What Are You Thinking?

This remains one of the questions that runs through my mind while I ride. There are so many decisions I see made that are firmly in the WTF category that I honestly have to resist the urge to knock on the window and ask these drivers what the thought process was that led them to a given choice.Today, between driving, and cycling for about 3.5 hours on the roads, I witnessed enough WTFery, that I am pretty sure I spent most of that time shaking my head in pure wonder, asking the same question over and over. What were you thinking?
## Jumping the Red Light to Turn Left
A red Honda Civic sitting opposite me at a red light. Left turn blinker on, but no left turn lane or signal. As soon as the light turns green, stomps on the gas and tries to get through the intersection before oncoming traffic. Almost gets hit by the Ford F-150 in front of me that sees green and gasses it too. The Honda is the angry one honking and shouting. What is the thought process here? All I can come up with is this…

  • Running Late and felt the risk was worth the 15-30 seconds saved.
  • Failed to understand that the left turn does not have the right of way.
  • Believed that the oncoming traffic would see the left turn and give way.
  • Was too busy on the phone to realize the risk being taken.

Passing into the Roundabout

This one I see way too often, but I still cannot figure out the thought process that leads to it. Every roundabout in this area has curbed splitters, ‘road furniture’ to guide traffic flow and the ingress / egress from them. Now, I was on the bicycle, so I assume the thought process is something along the lines of must pass the bicycle, because it is slow. The problem here is that no car, not even the highest end sports cars are going to traverse the direction changes of a roundabout as fast as a bike. We all know that the shortest distance is a straight line. A 1” wide tire can go a LOT straighter and faster than a 9’ wide car.

Sadly, over and over again, I see this. Pass at speed, jam the brakes, then freak out because the bike you just passed is suddenly closing hard and fast and within inches of your bumper.

I’ve got nothing. I’d love to hear what other think…


Passing into Traffic Calming Devices

In a city setting, particularly a pedestrian dense area, the use of traffic ‘calming’ islands has become pretty standard, especially in areas with parallel parking. These stretches of road tend to be narrow, and low speed. In this particular instance, 25mph zone, high density pedestrian in an entertainment district. Driver decides to pass a bike at a high rate of speed, into a traffic calming island. Misjudges the distance and space, and has to brake hard to not hit the traffic island, dodging in well within 3’ of the bike, placing everyone at risk, for no gain.
## Turning Left, into oncoming traffic, into a left turn lane 100’ up the road
This one pretty much sums itself up, and honestly, I have no real thoughts other than ‘my time is important and the 10 seconds saved have more value than lives, including my own’.

Pedestrians Have The Right of Way

… or do they?

I often have discussions with people regarding road use, and who has the right of way. Not always in the context of bikes though, as I and many OGRE’s are also runners, walkers, and generally like to get out of the car from time to time. One of the common themes in these conversations is the concept that a pedestrian ALWAYS has the right of way.

What if I told you that in Georgia, this is not only not true, but arguably, based upon the law as written, the pedestrian on Georgia roads almost never has the right of way?

I must be crazy right? Well, let us take a look at Georgia’s Pedestrian Law, 40-6-96.

2020 Georgia Code Title 40 – Motor Vehicles and Traffic Chapter 6 – Uniform Rules of the Road Article 5 – Rights and Duties of Pedestrians

§ 40-6-96. Pedestrians on or Along Roadway

The original version of this law dates back to 1953, and while it has been altered in small ways over the years, it really has not materially changed in that time.

So, with that in mind, let us dive right into the content.

a. As used in this Code section, the term "pedestrian" means any person afoot and shall include, without limitation, persons standing, walking, jogging, running, or otherwise on foot.

So, a pedestrian is someone on foot, and does not include bikes, electric scooters or other ‘personal mobility devices’. Those items find themselves in other categories, and are not covered by this law.

b. Where a sidewalk is provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to stand or stride along and upon an adjacent roadway unless there is no motor vehicle traveling within 1,000 feet of such pedestrian on such roadway or the available sidewalk presents an imminent threat of bodily injury to such pedestrian.

Well, this seems pretty clear and straightforward. If there is a sidewalk, a pedestrian must use it, unless it is in such poor condition that using can be established to have an immediate risk of injury, with the exception that there is no motor vehicle within 1000 feet, you can move off the sidewalk, but must return if a motor vehicle enters that space.

In short, if there is a car nearby and a sidewalk, you have to be on the sidewalk.

c. Where a sidewalk is not provided but a shoulder is available, any pedestrian standing or striding along and upon a highway shall stand or stride only on the shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.

And, if there isn’t a sidewalk, but there is a shoulder, you can use that, but not the roadway, and you have to stay as far from the road as you reasonably can.

Or, in more direct wording: There is no sidewalk, but still stay out of the way of a motor vehicle.

d. Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian standing or striding along and upon a highway shall stand or stride as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-lane roadway, shall stand or stride only on the left side of the roadway.

Also, absent a shoulder, you need to travel facing traffic ( on the left ), as far to the edge as reasonable.

Or, yeah, you have no facilities, but still, stay out of the way.

e. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

But, no, seriously, you do not have the right of way, and since this passage use the generic vehicles instead of the specific motor vehicles, that means even a bicycle has the right of way over a pedestrian on the roadway.

f. No pedestrian shall enter or remain upon any bridge or approach thereto beyond the bridge signal, gate, or barrier after a bridge operation signal indication has been given.

Well, this seems reasonable right? Wouldn’t want to be walking on a bridge that is closed for a reason..

g. No pedestrian shall pass through, around, over, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad grade crossing or bridge while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed

Again, seems reasonable, pedestrians and trains rarely mix well.

So, when DOES a pedestrian have the right of way in Georgia?

Well, 40-6-91 tells us that when in a crosswalk they have the right of way, unless of course they enter the crosswalk at a point when it is “is impractical for the driver to yield.” Which is pretty subjective, and witnessing driver behavior on the roads, the wording impractical is applied in a rather generous manner.

Then of course, there is 40-6-92, which tells us that if a pedestrian is crossing the road without a crosswalk do not have the right of way, and if they are crossing a road where there are crosswalks provided outside the crosswalk, they do not have the right to cross the road at all outside of those crosswalks.

It seems that, NO, Pedestrians do not have the right of way in Georgia

No, they certainly do not, nor are there any real protections for them on Georgia’s roads. However, a couple of cities have taken the first steps in addressing that. Dunwoody being there first to enact a Vulnerable Road User Ordinance. Brookhaven being the second. Hopefully more cities will get these passed soon, and apply pressure upon the state to address its broken pedestrian laws as well as adopt a strong Vulnerable Road User Law itself.

This is not enough though

While these laws being addressed are a great step, they do not address the core problem. They create punishments for those that fail to be safe around other road users, but, the core issue remains the complacency of drivers and the assumption that they have the right to travel at high speeds without due regard for other road users, not just the vulnerable ones.

This is a cultural problem that has to be addressed as well, and no amount of VRU law is going to fix that. That has to be fixed by people like us, every time we see people driving irresponsibly, we have to call it out, point it out and help get it corrected. Only then will our roads begin to be safe for all users.