Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Bike Bill Would Raise the Bar for Drivers and Cyclists

As the PI reported this morning, Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-43) has proposed legislation that would require both bicyclists and drivers to use roads more responsibly around each other. The PI’s description of bicyclists’ responsibilities in the bill tripped my trigger a little—according to their report, the bill would require cyclists to “ride as near to the right or left side of the streets” as possible. That can be dangerous when the right side of the street is a line of parked cars (and opening doors).

Fortunately, though, the language of the bill itself is a lot smarter and more nuanced than the PI makes it sound. It actually amends current law to say, “Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a rate of speed less than the legal and normal flow of traffic … shall, when traffic is present, ride as near to the right side of the right through lane as is judged reasonably safe by the bicyclist.” Later on, the bill defines “safe” as “a reasonable space of pavement on either side of the bicyclist, a position so as to be seen and safe from opening vehicle doors and to avoid being passed at less than a safe distance, and a surface that is free from hazards, pavement defects, and objects or materials, whether fixed or moveable, that may obstruct travel, cause a collision or fall, or damage the bicycle.”

The bill also would require cyclists to use bike lanes or shoulders when they deem them safe, and to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on sidewalks; and it lays out specific rules for cycling when a car is trying to pass on the left or the right (on one-way streets).

The real heart of the bill, of course, is the language that would require drivers to stay three feet away from cyclists when going less than 35 miles an hour, and five feet away when going faster. It’s unclear how the state would enforce such a law—as Pedersen told me this morning, “It isn’t likely that police are going to be out in large numbers checking whether people are passing at two and a half feet or four and a half feet”—but, he said, that isn’t the main point of the bill to begin with. “Part of the point of the bill is to stimulate public education about this as we move to a world where more people are cycling on the roads.”

Pedersen told the PI he had to include the language about cyclists’ responsibilities to convince his colleagues he wasn’t just targeting drivers. If anything, though, Pedersen’s bill would be a cyclist-friendly improvement on current law, which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as possible without regard for things like potholes, opening doors, and debris on the road.

Last year, a version of Pedersen’s bill made it out of the house but got hung up in the senate, where transportation committee chair Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10) wouldn’t let it out of committee. This time, Pedersen says, he’s optimistic but not overconfident that it will pass. Even though his bill wouldn’t cost the state any money—a big plus when the state is facing record budget shortfalls—”If a bill has some controversy about it but it’s not necessary to solve the budget problem, there will be a certain amount of reluctance to make it a big priority,” Pedersen said.


  • Safe driver

    At least the bill doesn’t contain any wasted language about bicycle riders being required to stop at stop signs or stop lights or avoid riding between lanes of cars. Wouldn’t want to put too much pressure on those bike riders.

  • Snoop

    Rules for cyclists? Good luck.

  • Snoop

    ……or wearing helmets, having lights (front and back), or riding two abreast or riding fixies with no brakes. Gotta keep the two-wheeled douchebags happy.

  • Gomez

    “It isn’t likely that police are going to be out in large numbers checking whether people are passing at two and a half feet or four and a half feet”

    Or much of anything for that matter. SPD is basically absent when it comes to enforcing existing law on cyclists, or on motorists encountering cyclists. I’m not sure how much new laws will help, other than giving the cash-strapped SPD another excuse to write tickets.

    It’s a step in the right direction, I suppose. If you’re going to address bicycle safety, you may as well pointedly address cyclist behavior, which always seems to get a blind eye in attempts at legislative bicycle-law reform. Yeah, some motorists are malicious towards cyclists, but many cyclists show a blatant disregard for safety and the law themselves.

  • http://www.twitter.com/joeszi Joe Szilagyi

    How long till someone claims that requiring bikers to ride the side is anti-bike?

  • Anonymous

    And the net effect on anyone’s behavior will be…

  • Anonymous

    And the net effect on anyone’s behavior will be…

  • Mongoose

    The main thing that should be changed is it should become illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk for more than, say, 50 feet. I say this as a cyclist. Bikes have no place on the sidewalk. If you’re too scared to ride in the street, you should be walking.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Those laws are already on the books, the RCW ref in the start of the bill is one of many already on the books.
    Do cyclists have to pass a test before the can ride in the road?
    No.
    Do drivers have to pass a test that includes bicycle safety before they can drive on the road?
    Yes

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Those laws are already on the books, the RCW ref in the start of the bill is one of many already on the books.
    Do cyclists have to pass a test before the can ride in the road?
    No.
    Do drivers have to pass a test that includes bicycle safety before they can drive on the road?
    Yes

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I think there should be a written test for bicyclists to pass in high school at the same grade/age to driver’s ed is given that just about bikes.
    Just make it part of graded school work, so a large population of the citizenry acts and performs to some standard.

    We are just throwing people into traffic, testing drivers and hoping bike riders both know the rules and laws.

  • Mrbombit

    WTF. So when would it be possible to pass someone going 5 slow as hell on a bike? How would a car pass someone with 3 or 5 feet of clearance on a one lane road? Especially considering all the two lanes road we used to have before the road diets.

    I thought bike lanes would be enough. This city will not stop until everyone is socially engineered out of their cars.
    This is just one more arm in Seattle and the Mayor’s War on Cars.

  • Snoop

    “Those laws are already on the books”

    So these will be more laws that won’t be enforced on a protected class.

  • Clif_Bar

    I just wish it was easier to eat my Dick’s Deluxe while pushin the ol Schwinn up the ave!

  • Clif_Bar

    I just wish it was easier to eat my Dick’s Deluxe while pushin the ol Schwinn up the ave!

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    So bicycles are supposed to:

    1. Get out of the way for both cars and pedestrians.
    2. At the same time, use only clear parts of the roadway
    3. And yet, cars must stay 5 feet away from them if they are going fast.

    As far as I can see, the only way all these things can be true is to double the size of the roads.

  • Go ‘way, ‘batin’

    I’m not sure I understand how a cop is supposed to cite a bicyclist for failing to get out of the way whenever the bicyclists thought it was safe. How does the cop know the bicyclist thought it was safe and then cite them for — help me out here — ignoring their conscience?

  • “two-wheeled douchebag”

    I guess I really should know better than to engage on this point by now, but here it goes…

    Y’all really need to stop using the fact that some bicyclists behave badly as an excuse to argue against bicycle safety measures. Yes, some bicyclists break traffic laws/ride unsafely. Yes, this is a bad thing. Many automobilists also break traffic laws and drive unsafely. (one difference: when a bicyclist does something stupid, the bicyclist gets hurt. When a driver does something stupid, the driver hurts other people.)

    Just today I was riding my bike, and took a left behind a car that was signaling left. Turns out the f*cker was actually making an illegal u-turn on a too narrow street and nearly hit me when they had to back up to complete the turn.

    Please notice that I don’t use the above incident to argue against any laws or highway improvements that improve automobile safety.

  • “two-wheeled douchebag”

    I guess I really should know better than to engage on this point by now, but here it goes…

    Y’all really need to stop using the fact that some bicyclists behave badly as an excuse to argue against bicycle safety measures. Yes, some bicyclists break traffic laws/ride unsafely. Yes, this is a bad thing. Many automobilists also break traffic laws and drive unsafely. (one difference: when a bicyclist does something stupid, the bicyclist gets hurt. When a driver does something stupid, the driver hurts other people.)

    Just today I was riding my bike, and took a left behind a car that was signaling left. Turns out the f*cker was actually making an illegal u-turn on a too narrow street and nearly hit me when they had to back up to complete the turn.

    Please notice that I don’t use the above incident to argue against any laws or highway improvements that improve automobile safety.

  • Galen_52657

    An excellent Idea. Ninth or tenth graders should have to pass a bicycling test as a prerequisite for a motor vehicle driver’s license.

  • Rich Wilson

    I make an exception for anyone who’s riding no faster than pedestrian traffic. e.g. children under about 8

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    It is anti-bike. The side of the road is never a safe place to cycle. At intersections, where most cyclists are hit, riding too far right makes you less visible. This is a terribly unsafe bill that will kill cyclists.

  • Rich Wilson

    Or language requiring cars to drive at no more than some set speed, like a ‘speed limit’.

  • Narrows Bridge

    Don’t you slow when there is a bike in the lane, just like you do for a slower vehicle? Then when oncoming traffic clears, I pull around the bicycle, just like I can pass a slower moving vehicle.

    This proposed law just says we must do it with a set amount of room instead of trying to squeeze around.

    Drive defensively, man instead of the alternative.

  • BikeRight

    Well. then, we all agree that our national policy – promoting incompetent bicycling and motoring – is a failure!

    How about some education and equitable law enforcement, instead of promoting incompetent bicycling on inferior bike “facilities”. Teach and ticket. Highway driving ends when motorists leave the interstate, and bicyclists must obey traffic laws too. It really is that simple!

    So when we demand that all road users be educated, and incompetent road users be removed from roads until they are educated, then we will take back our roads and reduce the escalating conflict that the so-called “bike advocates” (mostly anti-private vehicle folks) are intentionally promoting.

    Support competent road use through education and enforcement!

  • joolian

    Read again. How far to the right is at the cyclists discretion. If you’re that VC, you can ride VC.

  • joolian

    War in Cars = War on Christmas.

    Majority class whining about minuscule attempts to curb massive societal/govt bias in their direction.

    As for how to pass, you seem unclear on the road diet concept. There is a dedicated 3rd turning lane. Use it to pass. If that is too hard to figure out, please stop driving.

  • the king of 19th

    The knee-jerk reaction of the anti-bike commenters is amusing. I imagine you as embittered fatsos whose skin has fused to the fabric of your drivers’ seat, shaking your fists at the nubile cyclist who weave around your gridlocked vehicles.

  • the king of 19th

    The knee-jerk reaction of the anti-bike commenters is amusing. I imagine you as embittered fatsos whose skin has fused to the fabric of your drivers’ seat, shaking your fists at the nubile cyclist who weave around your gridlocked vehicles.

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    In practice, this translates to ‘whenever the police deem it safe’, which is usually all the time. You don’t seem to understand that cyclists are regularly ticketed and brought before judges in this country when they are obeying the law.

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    Oh, the cops will find a way. It won’t be the first time a cyclist has been cited, tazed, fined or even jailed for obeying the law.

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    Oh, the cops will find a way. It won’t be the first time a cyclist has been cited, tazed, fined or even jailed for obeying the law.

  • Anonymous

    A key advantage to having a 3-foot or a 5-foot law is that any driver that *hits* a cyclist is immediately in violation and can be ticketed. It may be small consolation, but without these laws cops often can’t find a traffic infraction and the offender gets off without even a ticket.

    What’s really needed, though, is zero tolerance for car-on-bike violence. That’s the case in Europe. You drive a car, you behave responsibly — and if you kill or injure someone with your car (never mind your excuses) you go to jail.

    Period.

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    Drivers quickly learn that all they need to do is claim that the cyclist swerved. Then, not only is the cyclist injured or dead, but he’s at fault too. That’s how all the states with a 3ft law currently work.

    Anyway, it’s all moot at this point. Cars are the dinosaurs – a 20th Century anachronism. In a few years, bicycles will be the dominant vehicle on our roads, just as they were in the 1890s.

  • Nope

    “In a few years, bicycles will be the dominant vehicle on our roads, just as they were in the 1890s. ”

    What a gem. Right Ian, because it’s so easy to deliver commercial loads and pick up ones kids by bike.

    In 5 years, the dominant form of personal transport will be … cars. In 10 years … cars. In 20 years … cars. Electric cars perhaps, but it WILL be cars.

    going to be cars.

  • Mrbombit

    Umm… it is illegal to use a turning lane to pass. This is the type of “do what ever you want on the roadways” ideology one would expect from a bicycle supporter.

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    Electric cars – powered by what? Where are the extra nuclear power plants coming from, ‘cos I don’t see them being built? Where are the coal-fired power plants coming from? These things need to have been in progress for the last ten years in order for cars to stay a viable means of transport – and the fact is, the fuel sources aren’t there because no one is building the power plants. You can’t fuel cars without fuel, and no one is building the infrastructure to get the power. Electricity is not a fuel source – it’s a fuel carrier. Shale oil is not a fuel source either – it’s a fuel sink when oil is at prices we can afford, and when it’s a fuel source, we can’t afford to use it.

    By all means keep your car. Maybe in ten years you’ll still have enough money to buy a horse to pull it.

  • Mrbombit

    You must have a lot of free time and patients on your hands? Some of us have busy stressful lives that don’t allow us to just wait behind every slow moving vehicle.

    Bikes are not just slow moving vehicles either. A slow moving vehicle could be considered someone going the speed limit or perhaps 5 under. But bicyclist go 20+ mph under the speed limit. They are extremely slow moving vehicles that lack insurance or proper protection in case of a collision. Why should drivers have to be burdened by narrow margin of error when riding next to a cyclist because someone decided they wanted to relive the past a ride a bike? Only in a few ultra-liberal American cites and Europe does this make sense. And thank god America is not Europe. Despite ultra liberal hipsters wanting it to be so.

    I wouldnt feel sorry for someone bringing a knife to fight in Afghanistan. Why should I feel sorry for or create special rules for people who choose to engage in a dangerous outdated form of transportation? Ride the bus or save money for a car. Stop with the social engineering.

  • http://twitter.com/IanBrettCooper Ian Brett Cooper

    Oil doesn’t care that your goods need delivering or that your kids need picking up. The world is going to have to learn to school its kids and buy its goods closer to home.

  • Rich Wilson

    Sigh, wrong button…
    You assume cyclists don’t have cars because they can’t afford them. I can afford a car, and guess what? Like most cyclists I actually HAVE a car! And I drive it!
    There’s plenty of lane for all of us. Just stay off the cell phone and don’t hit anyone, ‘kay? It’s really not a hard concept. We all want to stay alive, and none of us really wants to kill anyone.
    Cycling is really very safe if you know what you’re doing. All this law is doing is giving some legal recourse in cases where motor vehicle drivers are too lazy to pay attention to their lane position.

  • joolian

    Letter of the law, you are correct. You don’t need to swing all the way into the adjacent lane to get 3 feet though. On many roads, you can even stay in your lane. And center double-lines and turn lanes get crossed every day when motorists care to pass cyclists safely. Never seen or heard of anyone getting ticketed for doing so, and with adequate oncoming visibility, seems reasonably safe.

    If that’s “doing whatever you want on the roadways,” so be it. But I would say the same for widespread, culturally-accepted, driving 5-10 MPH over the speed limit, even though that’s considerably more dangerous.

    But OK, you never ever break the law even a little bit. Good for you. For someone as busy as you claim to be, you’re spending a lot of time posting here.

  • Anonymous

    Why should drivers operate their cars on interstate freeways? Interstate freeways are for interstate trade with large trucks. The interaction between these two types causes many accidents and many deaths every year, and the solution is simple. Don’t allow passenger vehicles onto the interstates. Why should I feel sorry for or create special rules for people who choose to engage in a dangerous outdated form of transportation?

  • jputnam

    The article grossly misstates existing law — the RCW already specifies as far right as SAFE, not as far right as POSSIBLE. Cyclists do currently have the legal right to avoid debris, bad pavement, drain grates, parked cars, door zones, potholes, etc.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for careful and accurate reporting, quoting directly from the bill and interviewing the legislator. I previously read the report on KING5, which, like the one in the PI as described here, is wildly inaccurate. I commented at KING5 and then after reading the article here, had to comment again to retract much of what I had said before.

  • Gomez

    Gasoline powered cars were impossible to fathom 150 years ago.

    We’ll develop new fuel sources. We might not even have any idea what right now, but this world is full of scientific geniuses.

  • Gomez

    Horses, oxen and carriages from 1890 say hello.

    Single passenger/family transport is not unique to the automobile. Some of you urbanists need to crack a history book once in a while.

  • http://bicycleexpert.blogspot.com/ Bob_Shanteau

    The proposed law (requiring bicyclists to ride in the ride side of the right lane) is discriminatory. All you need to realize is that in Washington, as in every other state, bicyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles and thus are subject to the slow moving vehicle law. Here is the Uniform Vehicle version of the slow moving vehicle law:

    “Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road, alley, or driveway.”

    So if a road has lanes, as almost all roads do today, then the driver of slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) must use the right lane. Also, every driver is entitled to full use of the lane. There is nothing that says a narrow vehicle (such as a motorcycle) must use the right side of the right lane. If there is room on the roadway to pull over to let faster traffic by, then it is only courteous to do so, but it should not be a matter of law.

  • Les

    Too many puppies are being shot in the dark
    Too many puppies are trained not to bark at the sight of blood that must be spilled so that we may maintain our oil fields
    Too many puppies, too many puppies

  • Les

    Too many puppies are being shot in the dark
    Too many puppies are trained not to bark at the sight of blood that must be spilled so that we may maintain our oil fields
    Too many puppies, too many puppies

  • Tchhht!
  • Tchhht!
  • Jhnpeck

      It’s already illegal, mongoose, but survival is a strong instinct.