New road rules proposed for cyclists in Montana

[fiamme red]

https://montanafreepress.org/2021/01...-for-cyclists/

If House Bill 184 passes in its current form, cyclists in Montana would be required to wear high-visibility clothing on highways and use front and rear lights 24 hours a day. The bill would also instruct cyclists to ride on the shoulder or the far right side of the right-hand lane under most circumstances and require motorists to give cyclists a minimum of three feet of distance when passing...

Scot Kerns, a Republican representative from Great Falls who’s also a member of the Air Force Cycling Team, also took issue with the bill’s language about riding on the shoulder.

“The shoulders oftentimes in Montana are full of rocks and terribleness, and I don’t want to pop a tire when I’m 100 miles away from home,” he said.

Here's the text of the bill: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/HB0184.pdf.

[dbnm]

I'll jump in and start with this:

Until local governments start taking care of bike lanes and shoulders, none of this will help keep cyclists safe.

Many of us already run lights 24/7 and wear bright colors but if we have to ride in the road to avoid debris, what's the point?

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by dbnm

what's the point?

to continue to victim shame cyclists when they get murdered by drivers of trucks.

[72gmc]

I’m happy to see a Republican speaking out against the dangers of shoulder riding. That side of the aisle is more likely to be heard in Montana.

[thwart]

Originally Posted by 72gmc

I’m happy to see a Republican speaking out against the dangers of shoulder riding. That side of the aisle is more likely to be heard in Montana.

Seriously.

Liberty or death!

Unless, of course, you are a cyclist.

[Mark McM]

These kind of bills are introduced regularly in every state legislature (and some local legislatures, too) and typically don't go anywhere (most bills never become laws). But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make our voices heard to oppose them, just in case one actually does make it out of committee to get voted on. Fortunately, there are cycling advocacy groups on most states paying attention to these things, and are mostly successful in opposing them.

[jamesdak]

No offense but when I actually read the text it seems to clearly exclude you from using the shoulder when it's not safe for riding. That part seems pretty much like what the law here in Utah is.

[bicycletricycle]

Law or no Law. lights and bright/reflective clothing are smart.

[OtayBW]

Lock him up!.......Oh, wait.....

[Sojodave]

Better Fred than dead!

[Toeclips]

All the rules in the world are fine but cell phones take shoulders away

[Hellgate]

^^^This

[Nomadmax]

Originally Posted by Sojodave

Better Fred than dead!

You just gave me the laugh of the DAY! Thank you sir

Originally Posted by Toeclips

All the rules in the world are fine but cell phones take shoulders away

And there it is ^. No sense in getting to the root of the problem and taking responsibility. Americans hold dear their right to pilot a 3500 to 7000 pound missile down a public road while looking in their lap at their phones; no matter who gets killed or maimed.

[9tubes]

Originally Posted by dbnm

I'll jump in and start with this:

Until local governments start taking care of bike lanes and shoulders, none of this will help keep cyclists safe.

Many of us already run lights 24/7 and wear bright colors but if we have to ride in the road to avoid debris, what's the point?

Wait...this is news to me. I ride like the guys in the Rapha ads. No lights, all black head to toe in the waining light of a rainy day...are you telling me I'm doing it wrong?

[Louis]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

The bill would also instruct cyclists to ride on the shoulder or the far right side of the right-hand lane under most circumstances and require motorists to give cyclists a minimum of three feet of distance when passing...

Of these two portions of the proposed law, I don't even have to guess to know which one will be enforced most rigorously.