Could I be cited for failing to stop on my bicycle after making contact with someone’s car? It’s not clear to me whether MGL chapter 90 section 24(2)(a) applies to bicycles. If I make contact with a car, and I am not hurt and the car is not damaged, there are many cases where I would not feel safe sticking around an angry driver and would prefer to leave the scene for my own safety. Could I be cited for doing that?
Legally speaking, I would say no. The statute refers to “motor vehicles,” which is defined in §1 of chapter 90 as “all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power.” It goes on to further specify that “[t]he definition of “Motor vehicles” shall not include electric bicycles or motorized bicycles.”
The thing is, I can’t guarantee you won’t be cited under this chapter. Most cops don’t actually understand the law, so they might not grasp the above distinction. It seems unlikely, though.
One of the habits that I have developed while riding in the city is something you really should try. It is deceptively simple, but it’s made me a better and safer cyclist. Here’s the deal: any time I see a car ahead of me with its turn signal on, I instinctively try to position myself on the car’s non-blinking side. That’s it. I call it a crossover.
I’ve already written about the importance of auto insurance coverage if you’re injured in a crash with a car, but I thought I should get into a bit more detail when it comes to the property side of things.
I’m often asked about bike parking—specifically, where it’s allowed and not allowed. There isn’t much specific legislation about locking up bikes, but there are still a couple of areas where it’s definitely NOT a good idea. Here are three to remember:
I was planning to give a talk at a bike shop, but then the pandemic happened, so we did it online. It was fun. I think we’re gonna do it again in June, so stay tuned.
Hi Josh, at many intersections, pedestrian traffic in a given direction is given a walk signal several seconds before vehicle traffic moving in the same direction. Can a biker waiting at a red light go when the same-direction pedestrians get a walk signal (ie not cutting across pedestrian traffic), or should the biker wait for the green light? "Bikes are vehicles" would make me think wait, "bikers can usually ride on sidewalks" would make me think go, I'm not a lawyer so I'm asking one. Thanks!
Asked by Anonymous
Good question, easy answer: bikes need to wait for the green light. The walk signal is for pedestrians, and cyclists in traffic are not pedestrians. I always thought this should be more obvious, since the walk signal is a picture of a little person on foot, and that’s not what a bike rider looks like (duh). But I get how it can be confusing when you’re waiting for the light to change and you see a bunch of bikers go on the walk signal. Anyway, now you know definitively!
One caveat: If you want to cross on the walk signal, you need only dismount from your bike. Boom, instant pedestrian!
Hi Josh, in MA is it always the case that a right-turning vehicle must yield to a person on a bike going straight? In other words, what should I do if a car ahead of me starts turning right and in doing so blocks the bike lane?
Asked by Anonymous
Yes. Well, kinda. The right hook law in MA (See, MGL Ch. 90 §14) applies when the car overtakes the cyclist, which does not describe all right hooks. However, there’s also the general principle of safely changing lanes, as described in Ch. 89 §4A. It states the following:
When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety. [emphasis mine]
Even though cars can’t drive in bike lanes, I would argue that they would still be considered travel lanes under this statute. Therefore, drivers have a duty to make sure it’s safe before they try and cross the bike lane to make their right turn. So, even if a car did not pass you prior to turning right into you or in front of you, I would say it’s still their fault for not checking before making their turn.
Now, as to your question about what you should do if a car ahead of you starts turning right, I would suggest you apply the brakes. If that doesn’t work, give me a call.
Hi Josh, I was wondering if you could speak to the rights you have, or not have, to bike on the sidewalk. In CBDs/Downtown that is not allowed, but outside it is allowed to bike on the sidewalk in my understanding, unless there is a separated bike facility present. Thanks!
Asked by Anonymous
Yeah, that’s pretty much it! A bit more detail:
-under the law (Ch. 85 §11B), you can only ride on the sidewalk if it’s “in the interest of safety,” but it pretty much always is. Just keep in mind that you shouldn’t be riding there in the interest of speed or convenience or something.
-you have to yield to pedestrians when riding on the sidewalk, and you need to signal audibly (best done with a bell) when passing a pedestrian.
-a “central business district” is a vague term, and you shouldn’t have to define it. Instead, just look for signs that say you can’t ride on the sidewalk. No signs, no problem.
A researcher from Harvard asked if I could help spread the word about a study they’re doing on bike share programs, and I said, “sure.” So here’s the info:
Harvard School of Public Health is launching a research study on bikeshare programs throughout metro Boston. We are recruiting individuals who have used a bikeshare (specifically Bluebikes) in the past month, as well as those who have never used the program. Participants will take an online survey asking about reasons and barriers to participation, and effects on physical activity. A $10 gift card will be given to those who successfully complete the survey.
Hello, I biked on the Cape Cod Rail Trail, where crosswalks had a stop sign and a sign that said state law is to walk your bike across the crosswalk; do not ride. I had not seen these signs before. I have ridden other rail trails that did not have these signs For example, Minuteman Commuter Bikeway does not have these signs. If it is state law, shouldn’t all rail trail crosswalks have these signs? Does this law apply only to rail trails?
Asked by Anonymous
Good question. As far as I know, the signs you saw are mostly correct, insofar as they’re conveying the fact that crosswalks do not offer any legal protection to cyclists under Massachusetts law. However, it’s not technically illegal to ride a bike in a crosswalk—you don’t have to walk your bike. But given the legal status of crosswalks in the Commonwealth, it’s certainly a good idea.
You can read more about the specifics of this issue here.
Is it legal to ride a bicycle on Storrow Drive? There are 'Cars Only' signs, but do those prohibit bicycles? They don't seem to prohibit motorcycles, and seem to be mostly to keep the big moving trucks that get 'storrowed' out.
Asked by Anonymous
Interesting question. The relevant statute is MA General Law Ch. 85 § 11B, which states that bicyclists have the “right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted.” Elsewhere in the Commonwealth, highway onramps tend to feature signs with pictograms indicating no bikes, horses, or pedestrians, but for some reason the ones on Storrow Drive aren’t as explicit. They simply say “Cars Only,” and “No buses or trucks over 2 ½ tons.” As you’ve pointed out, that doesn’t really count as “specifically prohibiting bicycles.” I hesitate to say that this means that bikes are allowed on Storrow Drive, as riding there outside of Hub On Wheels is an exceedingly bad idea. However, unless I’m missing the sign on Streetview, it appears that it’s technically legal. I’d ask MassDOT first, though.
Since children are allowed to ride bikes on sidewalks, are they also allowed to ride their bikes in crosswalks?
Asked by Anonymous
Nobody is prohibited from riding in crosswalks; we’re just not given any additional rights in them (like the pedestrians get). Also: adults can ride on the sidewalk too, if it’s in the interest of safety.
I wrote this a while back, and now it’s going to be debated today. It didn’t change their minds, but maybe a few calls from concerned constituents might.
Dear Senator,
Becca Wolfson recently informed me that there is currently a proposal to change the law to make rear lights mandatory for cyclists in MA. While this may seem like a good idea, it’s actually a change that is not only unnecessary, but also one that could do real harm. I ask that you reconsider your support for this measure.
Since the 2008 Bike Safety Act, Massachusetts has had the best written, and most carefully considered bike laws in the nation; I want to make sure that this trend continues. Mandating rear lights is a step in the wrong direction.
The problem with this law is that it seems like a clear home run. Here’s how the logic generally goes: lights are better than reflectors for visibility, and visibility means safety, so requiring rear lights will make cyclists safer. While this is generally true, that logic does not hold up when it comes to real world situations. Lights are only better than reflectors in a few narrow ways, and those advantages are burdened by a number of disadvantages that don’t affect reflectors.
First of all, unlike a red tail light, reflectors require an independent light source in order to work. Additionally, they only work if that light source is lined up with the person who needs to see the reflector. The thing is, in the situation contemplated by the law as it’s currently written—i.e., preventing cyclists from being struck from behind by motorists—neither of these disadvantages come into play. Thanks to the fact that all cars have headlights that shine forward, and the driver is positioned directly behind them, this satisfies both requirements of a rear-facing red reflector. As soon as an approaching car is at least 200 yards (the current legal requirement) behind the bike, it’s reflector will return the beam of the car’s headlight to the driver, and it will shine brightly. It’s the same technology that’s currently used to prevent crashes on roads and highways around the world.
Of course, a battery powered LED tail light could certainly achieve the same goal. The problem is, rear lights are subject to a number of disadvantages that do not similarly afflict rear reflectors. In addition to their significant cost compared to a reflector, rear lights also require working batteries in order to function. This doubles both the initial cost of complying with the proposed law, and the ongoing cost of two sets of batteries (assuming the rider would also have the already mandatory white front light). I often hear about safety initiatives to distribute free bike lights to low income communities, but I’ve never once heard of such an initiative that gives out free batteries.
The added cost of lights versus reflectors doesn’t just increase the difficulty of compliance with the law, it also makes them a target for theft. If you lock up your bike just about anywhere in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville and forget to remove your lights, their theft is virtually assured. Theft-proof versions exist to solve this problem, employing special fasteners that require a specific tool to remove them from the bike. However, this introduces a new problem: parking on the street. Batteries don’t do well if left outside during a Massachusetts winter, and they certainly won’t survive if left out overnight.
Temperature has no affect the operation of a reflector, and because they’re so cheap and ubiquitous, rear reflectors are already basically theft proof—nobody is ever worried that their reflector will get stolen.
However, I haven’t yet mentioned the most insidious weakness of rear lights compared to rear reflectors: you won’t know if yours has gone out while you’re riding. Unlike a headlight, whose beam is within the rider’s field of vision, a tail light’s position means that the rider won’t know if it stops working, leaving them invisible.
While a rear reflector can never “go out,” a rear light can only provide any sort of protection if it’s turned on, sufficiently powered, and not compromised by moisture, frozen batteries, or a loose connection. And while they don’t weigh very much, the weight of a battery powered light is enough to break its mount or open the battery compartment if the rider hits a big enough pothole*. Again, any one of these situations would render a cyclist with only a rear light completely invisible, and they wouldn’t even know it. However, the same cyclist with a reflector (in compliance with the current law) could still be seen.
To be clear: I am not saying that reflectors are significantly safer than lights, or that riding without a functioning rear light is a good idea. I have always been quite vocal in advocating for the use of both; a powerful red rear light, with a red rear reflector as backup. Reflectors are a contingency plan; they’re the bare minimum that can reasonably be called “safe” on the road. They effectively avoid the pitfalls of more complicated technologies, while giving up some of their effectiveness.
The point is, if we are going to impose a legal requirement for people riding at night, and thus saddle them with liability if they can’t comply or that required element fails, it ought to be the cheapest, simplest, most bombproof and infallible element possible that can still achieve the minimum desired result. Tail lights alone are not a panacea, and the law should not be written as if they are.
I am happy to make myself available to discuss this subject further, and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your continued efforts in implementing thoughtful and well written bike legislation for Massachusetts.
Respectfully submitted,
JZ
*A similar situation that I deal with quite frequently in my law practice is when a client’s lights break off due to the impact of the crash, and the police officer who responds to the scene diligently records that “cyclist had no headlight” in their report. Absent any proof to refute the official record, the driver’s insurance company is always quick to assert comparative negligence and deny liability. Over the years I have spent hours scouring the roadway for bits of smashed bike lights that the police failed to notice, as it is the only way to fight such an unfair outcome. To mandate tail lights, rather than a tail light or reflector, would add another unjust tool to the insurance companies’ arsenal.
Are ebikes (ones that have maximum assist speed of 20mph) allowed on the Minuteman commuter bike path?
Asked by Anonymous
Nope. According to Ch. 90 §1B of the MA General Laws, “[m]otorized bicycles may be operated on bicycle lanes adjacent to the various ways, but shall be excluded from off-street recreational bicycle paths.” Sorry about that.