Local cyclists getting word out about new S.C. bike lawBy David Quick (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wade Spees Student Meghan Protasi, who relies primarily on her bike to get around, pedals down a busy King Street on Tuesday. While riding without a helmet is not prohibited in South Carolina’s new bike law (same goes for motorcycles and ATVs), many argue that it's incumbent on cyclists to wear one for protection. Protasi is wearing headphones, but says she keeps the volume turned down low enough to hear traffic, horns and sirens. Bicycles on local roadways aren't going away. In fact — between the skyrocketing price of gas, baby boomers needing more exercise, new residents with bicycling habits and growing concern about the environment — expect bike numbers to increase in the Lowcountry and the Palmetto State as a whole. In a proactive step, South Carolina lawmakers in June passed a new bike law, the Bicycle Safety Act, that one local attorney who represents cyclists described as being "state of the art." "The reality is that law enforcement and prosecutors now have something they can work with," says Charleston-based attorney Peter Wilborn of www.scbikelaw.com. "It's another sign that bicycling culture is coming to our state." Veteran bicycle advocate and Charleston Moves President Don Sparks calls the new law "a vast improvement" over the former antiquated one. He says the most important changes are a harassment penalty and dropping the requirement for using a bike path if one is provided. "For once, our state takes the lead in setting a bike law that could be a model for the nation," says Sparks. The law is the fruit of two years of labor put in by the Columbia-based Palmetto Cycling Coalition and its executive director, Natalie Cappuccio Britt. "While I think it's a huge victory, it is only one step in a very long process in South Carolina," says Britt. Britt describes the new law as a needed component in trying to accomplish the "six E's" of safer bicycling in the state: engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation and — "the 'E' that has been missing most, equality." The old law, she says, was prejudiced against cyclists. Tips for cyclists involved in accidents1. Ride with a cell phone, personal identification, emergency contact and something to write with. 2. After an accident, immediately dial 911. If you can't, ask someone to help. 3. Always wait for the police to arrive and file an official accident report. A police report provides documentation detailing the incident, including the identities of witnesses. 4. Get the business card of the officer. 5. Leave your bike in the same condition it was in after the accident if possible. It's best if the police see the accident scene undisturbed. 6. Obtain the contact information of any witnesses. 7. Immediately seek medical attention, either at the scene, the emergency room, hospital or doctor's office. When in doubt, go to the emergency room. Give all complaints to the doctor. Medical records are proof you were injured and document the extent of your injuries. 8. Take photos of injuries and keep a diary of how you feel after the accident. 9. Never negotiate with the driver of the vehicle, regardless of who may be at fault. Get the driver's name and his insurance information, along with the names of any passengers. 10. Give no written or recorded statements to anyone. Besides bringing the state's law into conformity with federal standards and definitions, Britt says its main components include the following: --An anti-harassment clause: Any motorist who harasses a bicyclist, such as by taunting or maliciously throwing an object, could be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, be fined not less than $250, or be imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both. Wilborn notes that the old law didn't make that a crime and adds, "Now, get the tag number, call the police and file a criminal complaint against those drivers who 'harass, taunt or maliciously throw an object' at you. The jerks can go to jail whether they hit you or not. An injury or crash is not a requirement for prosecution." --The right to be on the road: The former law required that bicyclists use a bike path if provided. The new law allows cyclists to use the road even if a path is provided. Wilborn says that paths often are poorly maintained, and some aren't designed for cyclists traveling at modest or fast speeds. Britt adds that paths often are shared by pedestrians, including people with strollers or pets, and that it typically is safer for cyclists to use the road. (And it remains illegal for cyclists to use sidewalks.) --Minimum passing width, aka "safe passage": Motorists must leave a "safe," yet undefined, distance when passing a cyclist on the road. If a motorist strikes a cyclist, Britt says, it would "strongly indicate the motorist was not keeping a safe distance and, therefore, breaking the law." Prior to the new law, it was a "gray area." Wilborn says the clause will help address the problem of "buzzing," when a motorist drives as close as possible to threaten a cyclist, and that he prefers the undefined distance because a defined distance may be not be safe enough in some cases. --Civil fines: Civil fines for "minor injury" are set at up to $500 and for "great bodily injury" at not more than $1,000. Wilborn adds, "I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but the civil fine is in addition to the other remedies, including a lawsuit against the driver and criminal charges. ... The imposition of a civil fine of any amount will greatly help in the determination of more significant liability." --Rules for cyclists: The law also sets out certain obligations for cyclists to follow. It requires cyclists riding in the roadway shall not ride more than two abreast, other than on designated bike lanes or paths. A cyclist shall not carry any object that prevents him from keeping at least one hand on the handlebars. A cyclist riding at night must have a light emitting white light visible from a distance of 500 feet on the front and a red reflector visible from 50 to 300 feet at the rear. (The penalty was lowered from a misdemeanor to a $25 fine.) A cyclist may not hold on to a vehicle on the roadway. --Deleting the old-timey stuff: Part of the new law was getting rid of parts of the old law that didn't make sense anymore, such as elimination of the requirements for a bell on a bike and signaling. Regarding the latter, signaling can be as simple as extending the left arm to turn left, the right arm to turn right, or extending either arm downward to indicate a stop. But if a cyclist needs both hands on the handbars to control the bike, continuous signaling is not required. What's next? Britt and the Palmetto Cycling Coalition are planning an extensive education program, hosting workshops for law-enforcement officers and cycling clubs, e-mailing judges about changes in the law and working with the S.C. Department of Transportation on developing a manual for cyclists and motorists. "It's going to take a couple of years to get the word out," says Britt. "Education is an ongoing process." What they said We asked members of the local Coastal Cyclists bicycle club to comment on South Carolina's new bike law. This is what some of them said: "Over time, I think it will make an impact. I believe drivers being taught the laws today will understand the laws and abide by them a little better. Current drivers will only change their pattern of bad behavior when someone close to them is killed by a bad driver or they, or a friend, pays a substantial fine for violating the law. "I ride quite a bit. Most drivers are very courteous. A few, with intent, come way too close even when they could have moved toward the center line. Those are the drivers who need to change their behavior. "I was surprised at the level of hate that was exhibited in comments (online from previous articles on the new bike law). I wonder if they treat all people that way (e.g., points system for killing cyclists), or they just truly hate cyclists. The comments were so appalling that some of them probably could be prosecuted under terrorist laws." Carl Miller, webmaster and former president of Coastal Cyclists "Laws are good things to have; enforcement of those laws is another issue. I repeat myself when I say it will take another death or serious incident before the strength of this is seen or felt. I hate to be morbid on that, but that is my thought. "(Will the new bike law) make a difference? I am still waiting to see, but I can tell you I have been honked at, yelled at and cussed more in the last few days (after the law passed) than in the last year. "I do not ride on the road except to commute to work and run errands close to home. The rest of my riding is done off-road where it is quiet, and the only ones harassed are the squirrels. "But I support my fellow friends and cyclists that do road ride and wish them my best." Don Watts, avid local mountain biker "I'm very happy to see the law pass. It makes me proud to know that the hard work of our legislators, the PCC and concerned cyclists gave this law life. ... Paul LeFrancois and Natalie Cappuccio Britt from the Palmetto Cycling Coalition stated it best in that the law is a great first start. The next step is to educate and enforce." Brian Hackathorne, Lowcountry Volkswagen Cycling Team Reach David Quick at 937-5516 or dquick@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 15 comment(s)
Posted by theronce on July 10, 2008 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very good, Gadsden, you most of the pertinent points. The pretentiousness, hypocracy, and idiocy combined of some of these people is galling. I wish no harm to any of them. Apparently, they can now become more aggressive with vehicle drivers and set them up...heck, or even lie by simply writing down anyone's license number, calling it in, and having the government arrest or fine that person. Equal, what a joke, just like sharing the road. Any driver has always known that you cannot share the road with a bicycle, you must GIVE the road to the cyclist to avoid any problems. Now they own it to continue their harassment of motorists.
Posted by blueyes on July 10, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no problems with the bicyclists until they start riding their bikes on the sidewalk and except the pedestrians who are supposed to be walking on there to move out of their way so they can ride by. This is what bothers me: "and dropping the requirement for using a bike path if one is provided." Personally I don't think they should have done it. If there is a bike path provided, and they are becoming more prominent as shown down on Ladson Road when they expanded it they made one, that they don't need to be riding on the sidewalks.
Posted by CarnalKnowledge on July 10, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a recreational bicycler and agree and disagree with a few statements and parts of the new law.
If a sidewalk is available, use it and dodge the pedestrians that are using it or move to one side and they move to one side of the sidewalk and if that is not a feasible option, drive off of the sidewalk for a short period until you get past the pedestrians.
If a bike lane is available use it, just stay close to the curb so you don't get hit by motorist.
A few things do concern and aggravate me about todays society though, we as bike riders have to pay more attention to everyone else and what is going on around us, we are not surrounded by steel or plastic unlike those in vehicles who sometimes act as they are indestructible and act as if their vehicles are battering rams if you don't' get out of their way as quickly as they'd like you to, we have to be safe in the same manner each and every person in a vehicle should be.
On a different note, the cities could make it allot easier for cyclist to use the sidewalks and bike lanes if they install and make sure that all pedestrian crossing lights work. Allot of the roads in Charleston could use those.
If gas prices continue to increase our roads will be flooded with pedestrians, cyclist and motorcyclist.
I"ll end this sided opinion with 1 short phrase "Common courtesy goes along ways"
Posted by Smart_Enough_2_Know_Better on July 10, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Knowing that I am right in the eyes of the law will be of great comfort as I lay in a bloody, crumpled heap after some mouth-breathing redneck in his Chevy F150 buzzes me- oops- just a little too close. Or as the soccer-mom crushes my skull under the weight of her Volvo as she stops to investigate what that "thud" was that she heard while reaching around back to hand junior his juice box.
Make all the laws you want- I'll only ride where there is a trail or path.
Posted by ArrBee on July 10, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From the article:
"Britt adds that paths often are shared by pedestrians, including people with strollers or pets, and that it typically is safer for cyclists to use the road. (And it remains illegal for cyclists to use sidewalks.)"
As a cyclist doing a workout, I do not want to ride 28 mph on a sidewalk or path that is shared with pedestrians. I'll take my chances on the road. I can generally work with the traffic flow on a busy road until I am able to turn off onto a side road with less traffic. But as a commuter, when I bike my four year old son to school, I am not going to let him ride his bike on hwy. 17. We'll be law breakers and ride on the sidewalks.
Posted by Xnavykat on July 10, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is many of the roads around the area don't have shoulders and aren't wide enough to accommodate cyclists. Case in point...Old Hwy 52 where Garrett Wonders was killed. There is no shoulder and cars have to go around cyclists, pedestrians, etc.
Posted by common_sense on July 10, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I'm common sense.
I want to know where I can get one of those Chevy F150's. They sound pretty kewl.
I'm just sayin...
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 10, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This law is really about bringing up the level of knowledge and increasing awareness that automobiles do not have the sole right to use public roads. I do wish there had been some sort of "under-12" clause that would allow children to ride legally on the sidewalk - but we all know the the police have no interest in enforcing any of this... it would be amazing to see the Downtown Bike Cops actually obeying the law, too.
I ride regularly downtown, and in 14 years I've only had a few incidents (and I probably helped to escalate them, so I'm not blameless). In the long run, nobody wants anyone else to be inconvienenced, run over, or otherwise have a bad day. I'm willing to not run stop signs, not ride on the side walk, and to even use turn signals - just give me a chance when you pass me on East Bay or Meeting. I'm already sucking your exhaust and your heat (those motors are hot!), so my 15mph pace will just have to do.
BTW Gadsden, saying "we hate" five times in a paragraph, and using perjoratives like "dumass", "idiot", and "libtard" do nothing to further your position. They only reinforce Mr. Miller's observation that many comments descended into offensive screeds.
Posted by ptmama73 on July 10, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought head phones were illegal to wear on bicycles and in cars? When did that change? and WHY would you want to endanger yourself by limiting (by choice) your ability to hear - cars, emergency signals, etc.?
It was nice of P&C to show us a picture of a future organ donor though...no helmet, heavy traffic, voluntarily impaired sense of hearing, no eye protection - no common sense. How much do you want to bet they cropped the picture right above her "entirely appropriate" flip flops?
Posted by groover on July 10, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Being a biker all my life, I have seen programs for cyclists come and go. It takes people to make this work not government policies. Unfortunately it is going to take more than passing a bill, which is a positive step, to make cyclists truly safe on the road. A total awareness needs to be made to people that don't bike. These people need to understand that biking for some people is there only way of transportation. As well, cyclists need to pay attention to where they are the road for other motorists concerns. Working together instead of getting pissed off at a one another needs to be the focal point here Everybody needs to more patient on the roads.
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 10, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Gadsden It wasn't a grammar lesson, maybe it should have focused on reading comprehension.
Mr. Miller's comments: "Most drivers are courteous." and "I was surprised at the level of hate that was exhibited in comments. I wonder if they treat all people that way (e.g., points system for killing cyclists), or they just truly hate cyclists. The comments were so appalling that some of them probably could be prosecuted under terrorist laws."
My interpretation of Mr. Miller's comments are that he thinks most drivers have no problem with bicyclists, but that he was not expecting how crude the anti-bike comments were. He then wondered if that were how they felt, or if they were putting up a front, playing to a crowd reading the comments. I'm not aware of how anti-terrorism laws would apply, but hate speech just might. The P&C obviously agreed with his position, as many of the more offensive comments were removed.
Where did he complain about anything to do with "highyways and interstates"?
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 10, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Gasden "...this guy misrepresents people against bicycle riders on highyways and interstates as "full of hate""
I'm sorry I misread your comment, it really reads like you're saying Mr. Miller is misrepresenting people who don't want bikes on highways or interstates as full of hate.
Mr. Miller made no such representation. He clearly stated that it was the comments which were full of hate.
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 10, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Gadsden
Just to clear this up, if the comments were hateful, and they were made by people who don't want bikes on highways or interstates, and those people actually believe the notions they espoused (which is what Mr. Miller questioned)- then it would be be appropriate to say that the commenters were the ones being hateful.
How is that misrepresentation? "...this guy misrepresents people against bicycle riders on highyways and interstates as "full of hate"" Your own comments appear to be from a less than open mindset, with your gross misrepresentation of most bicylists.
Keep in mind I'm just trying to follow your argument. I'm perfectly happy with Mr. Miller's comment that most drivers are courteous.
Posted by griff895 on July 10, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another example of a small group of people wanting to have control over a large group of people; (dare I say it?)Why not? A vocal minority pushes their agenda to inconvenience a vastly larger majority and our elected representatives pass a "feel good" bill to accommodate them.
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 10, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Griff895
"Kein Mitleid für das Mehrheit" Look up the translation...
lol ;P