Signals


 

I can’t remember when I started to use hand turn signals while riding my bicycle. I do remember that until that moment in time it always seemed unnecessary, kind of like a pedestrian signaling an intent to make a change in direction. Actually, I think I began using hand signals at about the same time I decided that I was really a skilled bicycle rider – I guess it was a sort of add-on accessory to my riding skills. Now that I have been doing it for a few years it seems so natural to me that I don’t know how I got along without it.

Before I began using signals, I remember being chastised by some of my riding companions for holding myself out as a bike legal expert on the one hand and failing to follow the law about signals. The first few times I used signals I remember it feeling odd and unnecessary. Then, I had a few experiences where I was able to move easily through traffic because drivers knew about my intentions and we were able to share the road in a cooperative manner. Motorists appreciate it that I am giving them a way to predict my stops and turns. Now I use signals whenever I am in traffic and it is almost second nature. Riders need to know that the law requires us to use signals for turns and stops.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 814.440 provides as follows:

814.440 Failure to signal turn; exceptions, penalty.

(1) A person commits the offense of failure to signal for a bicycle turn if the person does any of the following:

(a) Stops a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal continuously for at least 100 feet before executing the stop.

(b) Executes a turn on a bicycle the person is operating without giving the appropriate hand and arm signal for the turn for at least 100 feet before executing the turn.

(c) Executes a turn on a bicycle the person is operating after having been stopped without giving, while stopped, the appropriate hand and arm signal for the turn.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is operating a bicycle and does not give the appropriate signal continuously for a stop or turn because circumstances require that both hands be used to safely control or operate the bicycle.

(3) The appropriate hand and arm signals for indicating turns and stops under this section are those provided for other vehicles under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

(4) The offense described under this section, failure to signal for a bicycle turn, is a Class D traffic infraction.”

The scheduled fine for a Class D infraction is $75.00.

From a legal standpoint, the statue provides a stringent standard, but, fortunately, one with an exception within it that allows us to suspend our signaling in order to maintain control over the bicycle. I suspect the statute was written at a time when most riders were using the old coaster brakes that relied on backward pedal rotation instead of hand levers. Signaling a turn or stop for 100 feet requires some skillful coordination, particularly during a downhill section with a stop or turn at the bottom (it is hard to brake and signal at the same time). Fortunately, the law allows us an exception so that we can maintain control over our bicycles and I frequently find myself signaling a left turn by putting my arm out into a signal and then pulling it back in to squeeze the front brake several times before I finally stop or turn.

Because the signal rule has the force of law, it contains a potential legal trap for unwary cyclists because it can be used against a bicyclist who fails to signal and then is hit by a negligent motorist. For example, let’s say that you are intending to make a left turn on a rural highway. As you veer out and across the traffic lane from your position near the fog line (next to the shoulder), you hear a car coming up from behind you and (surprised), you accelerate, hoping to complete your turn before the car overtakes you. Unfortunately, the car is going faster than you thought, the driver is not paying attention, and the motorist is unable to stop in time. While the driver misses hitting you, she drives her car off the road into the ditch and hits a utility pole. Thankfully, she is not hurt but her car is totaled.

This scenario should clearly focus legal fault on the driver. She was driving too fast, not paying close enough attention, and failed to maintain control over her vehicle. However, the bicyclist failed to signal. If she or her insurance company sued the bicyclist in court for the property damage to her car, they would attempt to establish “statutory negligence” on the part of the bicycle rider. After all, the bicycle rider failed to signal, and the driver would have instantly been able to see that the bicyclist was slowing to turn if a proper arm signal had been used. The delay in identification of the hazard by the motorist caused by the lack of a signal in all likelihood contributed to the accident. As a result, what would clearly be an accident which would be the complete responsibility of the motorist is now a shared liability accident and the bicyclist would likely be responsible for up to one-half or more of the fault in causing the collision.

Thus, the rather bizarre result of this example is that the bicyclist would likely end up paying for several thousand dollars of automobile damage. One uncomfortable byproduct of our labors to make bicycles a more accepted and legitimate form of transportation is that insurance companies are now pursuing damage claims against bicyclists who are looked upon as being partially at fault in accidents. As a consequence, bicyclists are sometimes uncomfortable with their new-found position of legitimacy (and legal responsibility), because they are looked upon as being potential deep pockets in repairing the damage from collisions.

I have had several telephone calls from bicycle riders outraged that claims are being made against them for minor property damage resulting from damage to automobiles caused by motorists having scratched up their cars in collision with the rider. This is an example of adding insult to injury.

Many of us are probably aware of the fact that the signal law actually evolved from legal requirements for motor vehicles and that the hand signals required of drivers evolved from the days when vehicles were not supplied with turn signals. Thus, the Oregon Revised Statute section referred to in the bicycle signal statute provides for signals which can all be accomplished with the left arm (the one that it is presumably capable of being hung out of the driver’s window of a motor vehicle). Nevertheless, as bicyclists we are also allowed to use our right arm to make our signals. It’s your choice. Whichever type of signal you choose, be sure to include hand signals in your bicycling repertoire.