After reading about the helmet survey launched by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance last week, I wanted to share a cautionary tale about helmet laws. I live in Vancouver, Washington where we've been living with a mandatory, all-ages helmet law since 2008.

If you're of the persuasion that mandatory helmet laws are a good thing, keep in mind that not all mandatory helmet laws are created equal and — as Vancouver is finding out with its 2008 ordinance — subtle wording can have a profound effect on the scope of the law.

Sidestepping the seemingly non-existent impact Vancouver’s law has had on helmet use, bike ridership and injury rates, it contains a few real-world complications that highlight why it’s important to pay attention to subtle wording.

The most complex dilemma of Vancouver’s all-ages helmet law is one that it shares with Oregon’s helmet law (which applies only to people under 16 yrs of age): both apply to infants despite a lack of on-the-market helmets that fit them and questions surrounding if it is even safe to put helmets on infants to begin with.

According to Vancouver Police Department spokesperson Kim Kapp, "If an infant is a passenger in a bicycle the parent or guardian is responsible for requiring that child to wear a helmet. An infant passenger is not excluded due to their age."

The coupling of the helmet law with a lack of available infant helmets leaves some Vancouver parent’s feeling like Vancouver is "banning" infants from not only bikes, but kid trailers as well.

"I got stopped by an officer over the summer. He said I needed a helmet for my three-month old riding in my kid trailer," says Vancouver resident Christy Patterson. "When I told him no one makes helmets for babies he told me that ‘I guess you can’t take him in your bike trailer.’"

(UPDATE: I just heard from an Oregon Department of Transportation official that said the Oregon law was written specifically to not include a child in a trailer. A trailer is a vehicle, my ODOT source said, not a bicycle, and therefore the under 16 bicycle helmet law does not apply. -- Jonathan Maus)

Banning babies from bicycles isn’t new as Section 1238 New York State Vehicle and Traffic law states: “No person operating a bicycle shall allow a person who is under one year of age to ride as a passenger on a bicycle nor shall such person be carried in a pack fastened to the operator.”

However, in that case, the infant bicycle ban is a clear part of an active, rather than an indirect complication of, a helmet law. It also doesn’t pertain to infants riding in child trailers.

Eric Ophardt, a New York State Department of Transportation spokesperson told me that their law "does not address children less than one year of age as passengers in a trailers or pedicabs." (Don't even get me started about Oregon's now infamous 2011 baby biking ban fiasco.)

Another confusing part of Vancouver's law is whether or not it means people in pedicabs are required to wear helmets.

Most pedicabs are essentially three-wheeled bicycles or trailers pulled by two-wheeled bikes. That means they fall under the legal definition of a "bicycle" as per Vancouver Municipal Code Section 9.62.020.

Now, requiring pedicab passengers to wear helmets might not be an issue in pedicab-less Vancouver, but what impact would a similar requirement have on, for instance, Portland’s thriving pedicab industry?

Vancouver's legal definition of "bicycle" further muddies the helmet law waters when it comes to electric-assist bikes. The law says bicycles are "propelled solely by human power," so you'd think that means e-bike riders are exempt from wearing a helmet right? Nope. Not according to Vancouver patrol officers I talked to for this story. And court records indicate that no one has been cited under the helmet law on an electric bike yet so there’s no established city case law to clarify the matter.

Adding further potential confusion to Vancouver's helmet law is the exemption it allows due to religious beliefs and practices and the fact that it doesn't specifically list four-wheeled surreys (popular with tourists) as vehicle types included in the helmet requirement.

Considering the numerous grey areas in Vancouver's law, the true debate might not be whether or not helmet laws are needed, but whether or not a confusing law does more harm than good.

After getting a ticket for not riding in the bike lane Neistat goes on a hilarious, stunt-filled video rant to point out that the bike lane is often obstructed by any number of hazards that make riding in it impossible and dangerous. "Ticket the bike lane blockers, not the bikers" is the mantra.

The video has spread like Lance Armstrong doping allegations over the past day or so and is headed for 1 million views on YouTube (and nearly that many emails from people wondering if I'd seen it).

The infamous "hotel zone"
bike lane on SW Broadway.

While things aren't as bad here in Portland as they are portrayed to be in NYC, the problem is real. Not only do we have a state law that says if a bike lane is present you must ride in it, but there are several places around Portland where cars routinely block the bike lane (SW Broadway comes to mind).

If you'd like to brush up on Oregon bike lane laws, see our Bike Law 101 column from last month. For more discussion and background on this issue, see "Are bike lanes a haven or a hazard?" a story we published back in 2006.

In the meantime, watch out for obstacles — and if a cop tries to ticket you for avoiding them, nicely explain to him/her that it's perfectly legal to leave the bike lane to avoid hazards. Or, just pull out your phone and show them this video.

Remember the disappearing bike lane case? I'm happy to report that it reached a positive conclusion — at least in the civil case of Carmen Piekarski.

First, let's go back to December 2009...

Piekarski was riding her bike eastbound on SE Hawthorne approaching SE 10th Ave. While in the intersection, the operator of a Toyota Prius, Ellen Metz, turned right and hit Piekarski. The right-hook collision resulted in several injuries for Piekarski and she spent months in physical therapy.

Metz admitted to the last-minute turn and the cops on the scene issued her a citation for violation of ORS 811.050.

Seems open and shut right?

Not to Multnomah Country Circuit Court Judge Pro Tem Michael Zusman. He ruled that because the bike lane wasn't painted all the way through the intersection, it was technically not a bike lane — so he dismissed the citation.

Zusman's decision was immediately called into question by Piekarski, legal experts and it even failed to pass muster with policies laid out in the Oregon Department of Transporation's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Hoping to find justice, Piekarski hired local lawyer Mark Ginsberg. Ginsberg told me today that Metz's insurance company has settled the case. Ginsberg says, the insurance carrier, "Recognized they were civilly responsible" for the collision.

"The moral of the story is," Ginsberg added, "maybe it [the judge's ruling] was just a one-off event... When faced with the facts of the case, the insurance company did right thing and got resolution."

While this conclusion worked out well for Piekarski, this is just one civil case. Unfortunately, the precedent Judge Zusman set with his surprising decision still stands. While Judge Zusman's decision doesn't set a precedent, the law itself could use a bit of clarification so this doesn't happen again.

Whether you like them or not, electric bikes have arrived and it looks like they're here to stay. E-bikes can now be found in almost every local bike shop, major manufacturers are adding e-assist to a growing number of urban and cargo bikes, and e-bikes can be spotted among bike traffic more and more. But what about the laws governing their specifications and usage?

This isn't intended to be legal advice, as I'm not a lawyer, but a brief summary of e-bike related law at the federal, state, and local levels.

Sam Hass uses his e-bike to
help pull his friend around.
(Photo © J. Maus)

Federal Law
At the Federal level, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) relegated defining what an e-bike is to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC defines a low-speed electric bicycle as:

"... a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph. (Public Law No. 107-319, section 1, 116 Stat. 2776 (2002))"

This law is also known as HR 727 (co-sponsored by Oregon's own Representative Earl Blumenauer). Since this is a CPSC ruling, it only defines what safety requirements are required to sell an electric bicycle; it in no way legislates their usage.

Also at the Federal level, under Title 23, Chapter 2, §217,

(h) Use of Motorized Vehicles.— Motorized vehicles may not be permitted on trails and pedestrian walkways under this section, except for—...
(4) when State or local regulations permit, electric bicycles...

For the purposes of this statute, an electric bicycle is "any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour."

In short, at the federal level there are some restrictions defining e-bikes for the purposes of sales, but the decision to allow e-bikes is specifically delegated to the state or local level.

(Photo © J. Maus)

Oregon State Law
At the state level, e-bikes are touched on by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) in several places. First, state law clearly says that e-bikes are legally considered to be bikes:

814.405 - Status of electric assisted bicycle
An electric assisted bicycle shall be considered a bicycle, rather than a motor vehicle, for purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, except when otherwise specifically provided by statute.

And here's the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) definition of an e-bike:

801.258 “Electric assisted bicycle” means a vehicle that:
(1) Is designed to be operated on the ground on wheels;
(2) Has a seat or saddle for use of the rider;
(3) Is designed to travel with not more than three wheels in contact with the ground;
(4) Has both fully operative pedals for human propulsion and an electric motor; and
(5) Is equipped with an electric motor that:
(a) Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts; and
(b) Is incapable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of greater than 20 miles per hour on level ground.

Although Oregon's watt limitation is higher than the federal limit, Oregon statute largely follows the federal intent. There are some additional e-bike specific statutes:

814.410 Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk
(1) A person commits the offense of unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk if the person does any of the following:...
(e) Operates an electric assisted bicycle on a sidewalk.

807.020 Exemptions from requirement to have Oregon license or permit...
(14) A person may operate an electric assisted bicycle without a driver license or driver permit if the person is 16 years of age or older.

ODOT's handy pocket guide to
bikes of all types.
-Download PDF-

ODOT has compiled an informational page summarizing the law as it pertains to bikes, e-bikes, pocket bikes, and other vehicles. You can download the PDF here.

Portland City Code
At the local level, the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) uses the ODOT definition of e-bikes in determining whether or not e-bikes are legally allowed to use bicycle infrastructure. This ensures consistency at the state and local levels.

Washington State Law (and beyond)
Washington state law is similar to Oregon law, though Washington law further requires wearing a helmet, and requires that the motor not provide additional power above 20 miles per hour. Some other jurisdictions have enacted their own e-bike regulations - for instance, e-bikes are illegal on all streets in New York State, though they are widely used as delivery vehicles in New York City. In Ontario, Canada, they recently completed a three-year test program to determine whether e-bikes could be safely integrated into regular bicycle traffic; their conclusion was to legalize e-bikes, albeit with some additional safety requirements around total weight, braking, and helmet usage.

In practice, e-bikes that are compliant with the above regulations are legally bicycles, and on one you are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities of automobile drivers, as well as other people on bikes. On a typical e-bike frame, 750 or 1,000 watts is going to be excessively powerful; in practice, 250-500 watts is sufficient for most riders. Heavier scooter-inspired e-bikes, legally still e-bikes, may need more power and bump against this limitation, as might e-bikes designed to carry cargo.

The 20 miles per hour is a reasonable speed limit – of course, it's more important to flow safely with traffic than always ride at the legal speed limit. Other countries limit e-bike speeds to 15 miles per hour; these models tend to feel underpowered on US roads. Finally, a restriction against riding on the sidewalk makes a lot of sense, even if you're not on an e-bike.

-- The article was written by Sam Hass, author of pdxebiker, a blog for discussion of electrically assisted bicycling in Portland. For more articles on e-bikes, browse the BikePortland archives.

"What are a cyclist's options when another cyclist causes damage or injury?"
-- Nick V.

[Ask BikePortland is a regular feature. See past questions and learn the answers via our esteemed commenters here.]

This week's Ask BikePortland comes from reader Nick V. Nick wants to know how to handle the aftermath of a bike-on-bike collision:

"Yesterday I was on the Eastbank Esplanade and was climbing up the round ramp to head east onto the Hawthorne Bridge/Blvd. Another cyclist was coming east on the bridge and turned off to come down the same ramp. He was going too fast, couldn't make a tight enough turn, and plowed into me head-on. The only real damage was a bruised knuckle on my left hand. He apologized but I was left wondering what to do if there had been more significant damage. I've had a few scrapes with automobiles where you can get license plate numbers or ask for ID, insurance info, etc. Not so with cyclists who might not have any documentation or ID. This "crash" could have been much worse and the other guy might not have been cooperative. What are a cyclist's options when another cyclist causes damage or injury?

Thanks!
Nick V"

Nick's question raises an interesting issue. As we see higher volumes of bicycle traffic, bike-on-bike collisions will increase. Without a vehicle license or insurance registration, how will people on bicycles have a formal way to account for the collisions and make sure both sides are held accountable?

Portland bike lawyer Mark Ginsberg says someone in a bike-on-bike collision still needs to exchange information such as basic contact info and driver's license number (if they've got one, if not, some form of non-driver identification will do). Ginsberg also reminds us that if both involved parties have homeowners or renters insurance, damage to property and physical injuries should be covered.

Have any of you been in this situation? Any other lawyers out there care to chime in?

-- Check out more in the Ask BikePortland archives.

Ken Southerland, the man who got a $143 ticket back in February for carrying someone on the rear rack of his bicycle, earned a victory when the case went to traffic court this morning.

Southerland pleaded no contest to the charges and Portland Police Officer David Scott agreed to have the citation "discharged," which means Southerland will not have to pay the fine. At issue was whether or not Southerland was guilty of ORS 814.460, "Unlawful passengers on a bicycle".

As we reported back in April, all Ginsberg had to do was demonstrate to the court that Southerland's rack was "safely equipped" to carry a passenger. According to Ginsberg, he showed Officer Scott photos of the rack in question and explained to him that it was more than capable of safely carrying Southerland's passenger.

The rack is made from sturdy steel tubes and was fabricated in Portland by Mitch Pryor of MAP Bicycles.

Southerland's rack.

Instead of taking the case to trial -- where Southerland risked a "guilty" finding and the PPB risked having the citation overturned -- the two parties agreed to the discharge to settle the matter.

The Oregonian also reported on the case. Read more details about what happened on OregonLive.com.

"We have a mutant status on the roadway." That's one way lawyer Ray Thomas tried to describe the often confusing and misunderstood legal standing of people who walk and bike on the streets of Oregon.

His comment came during a special edition of the monthly legal clinic hosted at Thomas' Swanson, Thomas and Coon law firm. This month's clinic (put together by Thomas along with the BTA and the Willamette Pedestrian Coalition (WPC)) was intended to educate local journalists about biking and walking laws so we can do a better job on our stories.

The turnout was a bit disappointing, but with short-staffed newsrooms and busy schedules, it was understandable. There were more advocates in the room than working journalists. The two that did show up (besides myself and freelancer/activist Elly Blue) were Laurie Robinson from The Oregonian and Brian Stimson from The Skanner.

In the conference room, there was a leaflet from the WPC that blared, "Because everyone is a pedestrian" (I wish it said "Because everyone walks," but that's for another post). There were also stacks of Thomas' excellent reference books, Pedal Power: A Legal Guide for Oregon Bicyclists, and Oregon Pedestrian Rights: A Legal Guide for Persons on Foot.

After brief introductions, Ray Thomas -- a man who is equal parts bike enthusiast (he races and is the founder of the famous weekly "Lawyer Ride") activist, and lawyer -- took over the room.

Thomas didn't hold back (nearing diatribe level at some points) in his nearly hour-long presentation. He listed in detail the many points of contention he has with biking and walking laws that are either repeatedly misrepresented or completely absent from most local news coverage. Thomas said (as anyone who reads comment threads on local TV stations can attest) it's imperative for journalists to better inform the public about traffic laws because, "It's an opportunity to raise the lowest common denominator in our community."

Thomas accused journalists of too often "punting" instead of outlining applicable traffic statutes in their stories and implored them to do more often in order to "raise everybody's collective knowledge."

With that, Thomas presented us with a long list of laws, issues, and other legal insights he felt merited more attention. Here are some of things he shared (paraphrased):

-- "We don't see collisions and crashes as 'accidents'... All crashes are preventable, it's not a matter of "accidents happen, too bad."

-- Thomas does not like when reporters write, "No citations were issued" (a common line in stories on crashes) because it gives the false perception that the party involved was not guilty of anything. Instead of (or in addition to) writing that, Thomas said it's important to point out that "current police policy is not to conduct an investigation or issue citations unless someone is taken away in an ambulance."

-- Conflicts between non-motorized users should be a story on local media's radar screen. Thomas explained the interesting legal issues around situations where runners use bike lanes. "Runners in bike lanes are to bikers what bikers on sidewalks are to pedestrians." (If you're taking notes, that means joggers must yield to people riding bikes in a bike lane and people on bikes must yield to people walking/jogging on the sidewalk).

-- Motor vehicle operators must yield to people using the sidewalk. He also went into detail about how he detests the Oregon law that states people on bikes have the right-of-way in crosswalks and sidewalks but only if they are going at "walking speed".

-- Both people operating cars and bikes must stop for people who are trying to cross or who are in the act of crossing the street. This is a pet peeve of mine too -- when someone on a bike speeds past stopped cars who are waiting for someone walking. Law says all vehicles -- bikes and cars -- must stop.

-- Thomas thinks the law about where it's legal for people to ride bikes on sidewalks is overly confusing and detrimental to getting more people on bikes. Not only did he ridicule that in Portland you can get a $500 fine for riding a bike on a sidewalk, but he said we should create an exception in the law for young people like they have in New York City (where 13 and under can use sidewalks). (If you're taking notes, in Portland it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk within the boundaries of SW Jefferson, Front/Naito, NW Hoyt, and 13th Ave.)

-- Another big one, which I only recently learned myself, is that while the law says vehicles must stop for someone trying to cross at an intersection, that person can't just jump out in the street and expect everyone to stop. The law states the vehicle operator must be able to stop in a way that does not "constitute an immediate hazard" to themselves or other road users; meaning, there has to be reasonable time for the person to see you and then stop their vehicle*.

*(UPDATE: The applicable statute here is 814.840, which states: "A pedestrian commits the offense of pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle if the pedestrian... Suddenly leaves a curb or other place of safety and moves into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." Thomas says this is a "legal opening for drivers to argue after a collision that there was no room to stop."

Rounding out his presentation, Thomas pointed to a vintage bike map of Portland from 1895 (that's 18, not 19) and reminded everyone that "We were here first!" People on bikes were kind enough to share the roads with the four-wheeled newcomers, now he said, it's important to remember to return the favor.

In addition to the "mutant status" reference -- which Thomas made in trying to explain the laws around bike riders' legal right to the lane -- another funny term he used was "urban deer phenomenon." This, Thomas said, was the psychology of some people when they're driving to worry that people on bikes are totally unpredictable (like a deer).

After Thomas spoke, there were great questions and interactions between Thomas and the reporters in the room. All in all it was an important and valuable event. The more reporters know about these issues, the better their coverage will be, and everyone in our city will benefit.

- Learn more about bike law from Thomas' excellent online article archive.

UPDATE: To follow up on the

DISCLAIMER: Mr. Thomas and his law firm currently advertise on BikePortland.org.

Back in February, Portlander Ken Southerland got a ticket for attempting to give a friend a ride on the back rack of his bicycle. In the summer of 2007, I saw two Portland Police officers issue a ticket to a man on Alberta Street for the same offense. In the latter case, the man was operating a tall bike with a home made wooden deck on the back (see photo below).

In Oregon, there's a state law that prohibits "unlawful passengers on a bicycle." With the popularity of Xtracycles and other long-tail bikes where people ride on the rear rack, and the general tendency for "doubling" (which is far from just a Portland phenomenon), I wondered whether or not the examples above expose yet another unfortunate grey-area in Oregon law that could negatively impact people who ride bicycles.

Portland Police officers ticketing a man in
July 2007 for carrying a passenger on the
rear deck of a tall bike.

The law cited in both cases mentioned above is Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 814.460. It states:

A person commits the offense of unlawful passengers on a bicycle if the person operates a bicycle and carries more persons on the bicycle than the number for which it is designed or safely equipped.

In the case of Mr. Southerland, he had a standard road bike outfitted with a steel pannier rack (made by local builder Mitch Pryor). After getting his $143 ticket, Mr. Southerland posted to the Shift email list looking for advice. He asked,

"What constitutes "the number for which it was designed to carry?"... And what does that say about the recent flood of passengers on extra-cycles? Are these designed to carry more than one person? And if so how does that differ from my bike?"

For insights on this issue, I spoke with Portland bike lawyer Mark Ginsberg (who happens to be representing Southerland in his fight against this ticket). Ginsberg said that people who carry kids and friends on Xtracycle decks have nothing to worry about because those bikes pass the "consumer expectation test."

A common sight.

Ginsberg said that because the manufacturer displays photos of the bike being used to carry people in that manner, consumers have the expectation that the racks are designed for that purpose (he cited the 2001 Oregon Supreme Court case of McCathern v. Toyota Motor Corp. as precedent). "The consumer is allowed to look at the advertisements and rely on them."

In Southerland's case, where the passenger was on a conventional pannier rack, the law states that the bike must be "designed or safely equipped" to handle a passenger. Since pannier racks are clearly not designed for passengers, whether or not they can safely carry one is up to the State to determine, says Ginsberg. "The burden is on the state... innocent until proven guilty... the State has to prove that the rack in question isn't safe."

Ginsberg will get a chance to make that case when he and Southerland go to court in June.

The situation that seems to be most open to interpretation is when the rack/platform is on a "freak bike" and not purchased from a known manufacturer. Ginsberg says in those cases, the State must either prove the rack is unsafe at the time they issue the citation, or they must determine that it was not designed to carry a person. And when it's a home made bike, it's up to the builder to make that determination. "Who's to say it isn't?" says Ginsberg.

I've only heard of two citations being given for 814.460 in the last three years, so I doubt this will become a big issue (like the fixed gear brake saga). In a nutshell, as long as the rack you're using is reasonably sturdy and you're operating in a safe manner, you shouldn't have any trouble with the law. But then again, "safe manner" is open to interpretation, and we've seen what can happen when traffic court judges interpret bike laws.

"We've had positive responses from members of the press so far, which reinforces our hunch that a legal clinic for members of the press would be welcome as a resource."
- Stephanie Routh, Willamette Pedestrian Coalition

On Tuesday (4/27), local non-profits the Willamette Pedestrian Coalition (WPC) and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) will host a special legal clinic to educate members of the local media about the laws, legal rights and responsibilities of biking and walking.

Stephanie Routh is the executive director of the WPC. She hopes the clinic brings local journalists up to date on the latest biking and walking laws. "I think laws that involve pedestrians and cyclists are more complicated than most people realize... How to articulate those complex laws in context of a crash or a breaking issue is even more difficult, and we want to help provide resources for media for their future deadlines."

Routh says they've gotten a positive response from members of the press, "which reinforces our hunch that a legal clinic for members of the press would be welcome as a resource."

At the event, attendees will receive a free copy of Ray Thomas' excellent legal handbooks, Oregon Pedestrian Rights: A Legal Guide for Persons on Foot and Pedal Power: A Legal Guide for Oregon Bicyclists.

The clinic will be held during the lunch hour at the offices of noted Portland lawyer Ray Thomas of Swanson, Thomas, and Coon law firm. It will also be webcast for those who cannot attend in person.

Ped/Bike Legal Clinic for the Press
Tuesday, 27 April 2010, 12:00 – 1:00pm
Swanson, Thomas & Coon (820 SW 2nd Ave. Ste. 200)

Since Oregon enacted their new cell phone law on January 1st, many people have asked me if it applies to people riding bicycles. My previous opinion was that it doesn't, but a closer look at the law now has me less certain -- and more confused.

The new law applies to people, "operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device." Since bicycles are not "motor vehicles," I initially assumed this meant that bicycles would be exempt. But I don't like to operate on assumptions, especially when it comes to bike laws, so I asked the office of State Representative Carolyn Tomei -- the legislator who pushed the cell phone bill -- for a clarification.

According to one of the Rep. Tomei's legislative assistants, Debbie Runciman, "There's some discussion that the law as written would actually include bicyclists."

The reason? Oregon Revised Statute 814.400, "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles."

814.400 reads:

"(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, except:

(a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

(b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section:

(a) A bicycle is a vehicle for purposes of the vehicle code; and

(b) When the term "vehicle" is used the term shall be deemed to be applicable to bicycles."

This ORS could lead reasonable people to believe that bicycles are included in the cell phone law -- but it's still not crystal clear. 814.400 refers to the term "vehicle" and the new cell phone law refers to "motor vehicle." If a judge was a stickler for "statutory construction" (as we know some are), they could rule that bicycles aren't motor vehicles so the law does not apply.

In the end, this is yet another confusing law that has potential for subjective interpretation by police and judges. Or, as Tomei's legislative assistant put it, "It would probably take a legal challenge for a definitive answer."