How difficult would it be to get WV Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey to issue a WV law interpretation that requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists? Iowa's Attorney General did it.

I will not be able to attend the Oct. 24 WVCC meeting which will discuss the 2014 legislative agenda so I'm writing this message to ask the WVCC to consider adopting Iowa's approach rather than trying to pass 4-foot or 3-foot passing legislation.

Just like WV, Iowa law says that bicyclists have the same rights as the driver of a vehicle; that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and that bicycles are not vehicles. The Iowa Attorney General said that since bicyclists have the same rights as motorists and that motorists must change lanes to pass other vehicles, they must also change lanes to pass bicycles. For more details see http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/safepassing/ . I've attached a comparison of the relevant WV and IA laws.

The fact that the Iowa driver manual instructs motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists helps inculcate the Attorney General's interpretation. We should also consider working with WVDOT to improve the WV Driver Manual to better guide motorists on how to drive around bicyclists. Perhaps WVDOT would work with us to persuade the Attorney General?

After I drafted last year's legislative agenda that included a 4-foot passing law, I obtained "The 3 ft. Law: Lessons Learned from a National Analysis of State Policies and Expert Interviews" by Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy published May 2012. (Attached)

The report indicates that:

• The greatest benefit of the 3-foot law is educational by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists but the educational benefit may be short-lived.

• The 3-foot law is hardly enforced if enforced at all in 20 states that have adopted it and it might be practically unenforceable.

• 3-feet is insufficient when motor vehicles are traveling more than 35 mph.

After reading the report, I offer the following to support requiring motorists to change lanes to pass bicycles:

• Iowa did it.

• Since most travel lanes in WV are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane, motorists must encroach into the adjacent lane to pass bicyclists while allowing more than 3 or 4-feet. If they're going to encroach into the adjacent lane, why not just move into it?

• Motorists must change lanes when passing slower moving motor vehicles so changing lanes when passing bicyclists shouldn't be any more difficult or inconvenient.

• While motorists and police officers may not be able to accurately judge 3 or 4-feet, they can certainly accurately judge which lane they're in or whether they're straddling two lanes.

One caveat: on narrow two lane roads with lanes separated by a double yellow center line, I believe crossing the double yellow center line is prohibited (although everybody does it). Whether we advocate for a 3 or 4-foot passing rule or for motorists to change lanes to pass, motorists would have to be allowed to cross the double yellow line. I don't know how WV code addresses crossing the double yellow line. The Rutgers report says that Arkansas and Maine have modified their law to allow motorists to pass bicycles in no passing zones when it is safe to do so. I understand that PA who passed their 4-foot rule after the Rutgers report was published has done similarly.

Finally, I would ask the WVCC to concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable. For justification, I've attached again the talking points that I sent you on April 2, 2013.

Frank D. Gmeindl
LCI #1703
491 Wilson Avenue
Morgantown, WV 26501
304-376-0446
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles