From the PA Bicycle Driver's Manual: "If you block traffic for more than a short time, the law requires you to pull to the side and let the traffic by."

What's considered a "short time"? What's considered "blocking traffic"?

I'm struggling for an answer here and since this often comes up with coworkers (who drive on the same roads I ride to work on every day) I'd like get some further opinions. To me, a short time of blocking traffic depends on the posted speed limit, the cyclist's proximity to it, and the traffic pattern on the road. In my mind, as long as I'm no more than 15mph below the posted limit, I'm not "blocking traffic" so there cannot be a "short time" after which I need to pull off the road. This is the case for 60% of my commute where the road is not wide enough to share. Defining "blocking traffic" is very difficult for me, though. I can't seem to come up with a set of rules to abide by. I'd like some help here.

Note that I have never once pulled off the road to let motorists by. The only times I feel that I have blocked traffic was on a road where I would reach the next intersection in about 2.5-3 minutes. This intersection has a traffic light that takes about 3 minutes for a full cycle (crossing a major road). Many times motorists have passed me at the bottom and I've pulled up behind them at the light. So even though I'm usually moving at 10-13mph on this 35mph stretch of road, I do not consider it blocking traffic.

Any comments?

If I have more than 3 stacked up behind me, and they can't pass safely, I will pull over and let them go.

But it's rare. Mostly they can pass me safely.

How long will you ride with 3 cars behind you before you pull over? Do you take into consideration your speed relative to the speed limit in that decision? When you say "pull over", do you mean actually move off the road and stop or just move as far right as possible?

Let me put a smoke bomb under my exploder and see how long I can go 8 miles per hour. I bet I can drive the whole 12 miles to work that way.

It's situational. I can't quote a rule. But, I won't let anyone intimidate me off the pavement. They have to slow down and match my speed. Then, if they're crawling patiently behind me at 15 - 20 MPH, and their stated speed limit is much more, I won't torture them for very long before I let them fly. A minute, no more. It's a courtesy thing.

I will leave the road surface. Obviously, it was never wide enough for me to share with them in the first place, so why would I risk inviting a side-swipe?


How long will you ride with 3 cars behind you before you pull over? Do you take into consideration your speed relative to the speed limit in that decision? When you say "pull over", do you mean actually move off the road and stop or just move as far right as possible?

I figure it's dependent upon the situation and your own judgement. I try to be courteous and get out of the way ASAP, but I won't do so at the expense of my own safety.

You might want to check what the actusl "law" actually says. The driver's manual, as far as I know, is an interpretation somebody made of the state's (or commonwealth's) vehicular code. It is not actual law. The Penn. state government's web site will either contain the entire vehicular code, link to it, or tell you how to order a copy. Your libraries will also have copies.

Personally, I will pull over to the right for traffic that I am "impeding" as soon as it is safe for me to do so. This depends on road and traffic conditions, not seconds or minutes ticking by on the clock. Usually, it would be less than a minute, but sometimes maybe a bit longer.

A quick Google search turns up this for Pennsylvania. I won't try to interpret:


3364. Minimum speed regulation.
(a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(b) Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall, at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.



Section (a) doesn't apply to bikes, they're not motor vehicles. Section (b) leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

However, section 3505 deals specifically with bicycles, and says:

(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.--A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of section 3301(b) (relating to driving on right side of roadway) unless it is unsafe to do so.


Which directs us to section 3301(b), which says:

b) Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.-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 an alley, private road or drive-way. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the righthand lane to continue on his intended route.

Sounds like Roody's approach (which is mine) is consistent with the law as quoted by DCCommuter.

After some reflection, I'll posit that in order to be guilty of impeding under 3364(b), ALL of the following must be true:

1. There must be only one lane on your side of the road.
2. You must be travelling slower than the speed limit and the flow of traffic.
3. It must not be possible for following vehicles to pass safely.
4. There must be a shoulder or berm available for you to pull over onto.
5. It must be safe to pull over.
6. There must be following vehicle that is being impeded.

This is a lot more specific than "If you block traffic for more than a short time, the law requires you to pull to the side and let the traffic by."

I would say that these conditions taken together are more than reasonable, and that very few cyclists would not pull over if all of them were true. In fact, most cyclists will pull over if one or two of them are true.

As a side note, the PA operators manual is based on John Allen's book "Bicycle Street Smarts" and this section was changed. Here's what the original said: "If you block traffic for more than a short time, common courtesy suggests, and the law normally requires, that you pull to the side and let the traffic by when you can safely do so."

It's not uncommon for "interpretations" of the law written by bureaucrats to reflect what the author thinks the law should be, not what it really says.

After some reflection, I'll posit that in order to be guilty of impeding under 3364(b), ALL of the following must be true:

1. There must be only one lane on your side of the road.
2. You must be travelling slower than the speed limit and the flow of traffic.
3. It must not be possible for following vehicles to pass safely.
4. There must be a shoulder or berm available for you to pull over onto.
5. It must be safe to pull over.
6. There must be following vehicle that is being impeded.

This is a lot more specific than "If you block traffic for more than a short time, the law requires you to pull to the side and let the traffic by."

I would say that these conditions taken together are more than reasonable, and that very few cyclists would not pull over if all of them were true. In fact, most cyclists will pull over if one or two of them are true.

As a side note, the PA operators manual is based on John Allen's book "Bicycle Street Smarts" and this section was changed. Here's what the original said: "If you block traffic for more than a short time, common courtesy suggests, and the law normally requires, that you pull to the side and let the traffic by when you can safely do so."

It's not uncommon for "interpretations" of the law written by bureaucrats to reflect what the author thinks the law should be, not what it really says.

I do not see anything that states or implies number 3 in your list in the law. I don't think you mean it to imply that it is OK as long as they can pass even if cars are stacking up behind you, but others here would push what you said that way.

California law is more clear. 4 cars behind you and you must pull over ant the next chance on a one lane each way road.

What about multilane roads with traffic so dense that by riding in one lane you are effectively causing a significant back up. Technically the cars can go around you, but realistically having 2 lane merge into one causes a jam.

What if you can't pull over? There is a 1mi stretch with a concrete wall on one side, not place to go.

Al

There is one specific main road here I can think of that is so narrow and busy that if I rode it for any length of time, it would cause undue traffic tie-ups. So I don't ride there.

Where I ride, either the traffic is light, the lane is wide, traffic speed is slow or there's a lane open to pass. Once in a while, there's a bottleneck that makes me hold up traffic for a moment, but people that pass me have to stop for the next light anyway.

What about multilane roads with traffic so dense that by riding in one lane you are effectively causing a significant back up. Technically the cars can go around you, but realistically having 2 lane merge into one causes a jam.

What if you can't pull over? There is a 1mi stretch with a concrete wall on one side, not place to go.



The PA law is clear that neither of these is illegal -- you have to let your own conscience be your guide. The second one is particularly problematic because if there is no way for cyclists to avoid impeding other traffic, the only alternative is for bicyclists to avoid the road altogether. The state has the option of closing roads to bicycles; if the state chooses not to do so, then cyclists have the right to use the road, even if it means that other road users are inconvenienced. Whether you choose to exercise that right is your choice.

joejack (OP):

You should also probably check local street ordinances (city, town, township) if you are still real concerned. Sometimes they are different than the state code.

But probably (in my opinion, based on the sections quoted here in DC's fantastic posts) the Penn. laws allow or support sound vehicular cycling practices.

... It's not uncommon for "interpretations" of the law written by bureaucrats to reflect what the author thinks the law should be, not what it really says.
So true. And at least as true for police as for bureaucrats, in my experience.

Ok, so we've established what constitutes impeding traffic. Thanks to everyone for their thoughts especially DCC who put a lot of effort into his replies. I agree that it is in my best interest as a cyclist to pull over when safe to allow backed up traffic to pass if I'm holding people up with no relief (break in traffic, wider shoulder) in sight. I'm still not so sure about what a "short time" is. The situation I mention in my original post occurs on a road where I guess it could be possible to pull over although I'd have to basically stop in the road to do so (edges of the road are cracked and the area I could pull off into is probably 6 inches lower than the pavement). I don't consider that safe but it could be argued that it is. Assuming a judge thinks it's safe (BTW, there is no judge involved, I'm just trying to make a point), for how long do I have to be impeding traffic before I should pull over?

On the road in question, there are 3 spots that it is safe to pass, at the beginning, the middle, and the end right before the light. If the cars behind me don't get by at the beginning they need to wait until I crest the first section of the hill before they can pass. If traffic is too heavy in the other direction at that point, they then need to either wait behind me the rest of the way or pass me right before the light (usually by using the right turning lane since I stay in the center of the road to go straight). I count on cars being able to pass me at these points so I don't feel a need to pull over even though I might impede traffic for 30-60 seconds at a time (up to 3 minutes for the full length of the road). Am I violating the law?

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts especially DCC who put a lot of effort into his replies.

That's not true, I'm just really good at Googling.

Onto your question. Your original question was about what the law said. That's easy. Your second question is much harder; cycling is so situational that without viewing the actual road it's hard to give an opinion. It really boils down to first, do you feel like you are imposing an unreasonable burden on other users of the road, and second, what is the likelihood of getting hassled by either motorists or cops if you ride there?

The cops question doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the law says -- when dealing with cops, even if you're right you're wrong. You're always better off doing what the cops say than going to court and winning, and there is no guarantee that the courts will follow the law. One of John Forester's pages has this discouraging quote: (http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/legaldef.htm)



When I reviewed the only book of nationwide judicial opinions about bicycle law, Paul Hill's Bicycle Law and Practice, I discovered that in almost all of the cases nobody in the courtroom knew what they were considering. Not the judges, nor the attorneys for either side, nor the witnesses when testifying to bicycle matters. Some appeals opinions were contrary to man's law, others were contrary to physical law. Many were incredible. That book (1986) disclosed, to my eyes at least, the shoddy state of the practice of law as it pertains to cyclists.

You're always better off doing what the cops say than going to court and winning, and there is no guarantee that the courts will follow the law. One of John Forester's pages has this discouraging quote: "When I reviewed the only book of nationwide judicial opinions about bicycle law, Paul Hill's Bicycle Law and Practice, I discovered that in almost all of the cases nobody in the courtroom knew what they were considering. Not the judges, nor the attorneys for either side, nor the witnesses when testifying to bicycle matters. Some appeals opinions were contrary to man's law, others were contrary to physical law. Many were incredible. That book (1986) disclosed, to my eyes at least, the shoddy state of the practice of law as it pertains to cyclists."
There is much truth in your advice; the interpretation of law is not cut and dry, and is sometimes interpreted on the street. There is one thought to keep in mind when considering Forerster's gloomy take on the state of law enforcement

In Forester's "eyes", EVERYBODY and ANYBODY with a different view of legal issues than his non-lawyer opinion, or has a differing opinion from him on ANY subject, doesn't know what they are talking about.

In Forester's "eyes", EVERYBODY and ANYBODY with a different view of legal issues than his non-lawyer opinion, or has a differing opinion from him on ANY subject, doesn't know what they are talking about.

Since motor vehicles are already demonstrating what they do on a road, especially the police, it would be nice if they could be made to demonstrate their judgments on a bicycle. I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen, though.

In Forester's "eyes", EVERYBODY and ANYBODY with a different view of legal issues than his non-lawyer opinion, or has a differing opinion from him on ANY subject, doesn't know what they are talking about.
Which doesn't rule out the possibility that he is correct.

The particular statute states that:

(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.--A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of section 3301(b) (relating to driving on right side of roadway) unless it is unsafe to do so.

In my interpretation, if the road is narrow, it is safer to take up the whole lane and keep cars behind you rather than have them try to pass you and possibly knock you off. Since the stat has an "unsafe" provision, 3301(b) does not apply.

Now, I'm not talking about a road where the speed limit is 55. I will either avoid that road or ride all the way to the right. But on a narrow lane where the speed limit is up to 35, taking up the whole lane is safer.

That's not true, I'm just really good at Googling.

Onto your question. Your original question was about what the law said. That's easy. Your second question is much harder; cycling is so situational that without viewing the actual road it's hard to give an opinion. It really boils down to first, do you feel like you are imposing an unreasonable burden on other users of the road, and second, what is the likelihood of getting hassled by either motorists or cops if you ride there?

The cops question doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the law says -- when dealing with cops, even if you're right you're wrong. You're always better off doing what the cops say than going to court and winning, and there is no guarantee that the courts will follow the law. One of John Forester's pages has this discouraging quote: (http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/legaldef.htm)

Oh admit it. You stayed up all night working on your posts :)

In the grand scheme of things, I do not feel like I'm imposing an unreasonable burden on the motorists waiting behind me as I climb that hill. I do feel that it would be an unreasonable burden for me to move off the roadway and stop to let them by then get going again on a 10+% slope. But I'm me not them. Some people have shown me that 60+ seconds is not too long for them to wait. Others let me know that the simple action of me being on the same road as them is too much.

As to cops, I have yet to see a cop on this short stretch of road so I can't see myself getting pulled over any time soon. If it does ever happen, I'm sure it will be an interesting conversation (and a better one after having created and learning from this thread).

Which doesn't rule out the possibility that he is correct.
True, but how much faith do you place in the "possibility of correctness" in unsubstantiated statements from someone with a long history of being unable or unwilling to make a distinction between personal guesswork and verifiable facts/measured data?

True, but how much faith do you place in the "possibility of correctness" in unsubstantiated statements from someone with a long history of being unable or unwilling to make a distinction between personal guesswork and verifiable facts/measured data?
Sounds like most people I know.

Note that some states, such as NC, don't have a law requiring slow vehicles (including tractors pulling tobacco wagons) to pull off the road when traffic backs up on a two-lane road.

A cop in my city once pulled over a cyclist for impeding traffic on a narrow two-lane bridge; a call from a city traffic planner to the police department apparently got the problem resolved. In NC, like most states, the impeding traffic statute that prohibits slow operation only applies to those motorized vehicles capable of safely traveling as fast as the normal movement of traffic. And all road users have an equal right to the travel lanes; this is spelled out in the NC Driver Manual.

I sometimes find a couple of cars backed up behind me for more than 20 seconds or so on a narrow 2-lane. If it lasts much longer than that, I pull over as a courtesy, not because the law requires it. On 4-lane roads with narrow lanes, use the center of the lane and only pull over for emergency vehicles.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
True, but how much faith do you place in the "possibility of correctness" in unsubstantiated statements from someone with a long history of being unable or unwilling to make a distinction between personal guesswork and verifiable facts/measured data?
Sounds like most people I know.

Hence the popularity and long legs for urban legends, "conventional wisdom", superstition, stereotypes, and a long line of BS statements/claims that are believed "correct" by people (like the ones you know); and BS that a few true believers zealously promote.

As long as I don't tie up traffic for an extended period, police never hassle me. The police and I seem to be on the same page as far as using common sense is concerned. I don't tie up traffic unnecessarily and they don't bother me. They seem to have a "live and let live" attitude.

Only once did an Atlanta city police officer say anything to me, and he was extremely helpful and polite. Looking back at the incident, I'm sure he was concerned for my safety.

I think we're missing the big picture here. In a replying post, the OP said that the longest time he causes faster traffic to wait would be 30-60 seconds. The entire length of the section of road in question takes him 3 minutes to ride. If vehicle have 3 spots to pass in a section of road that only takes 3 minutes to get through on a bike, then if I was riding it I wouldn't feel that I was causing anyone any problems.

A little common sense goes a long way, and joejack951 seems to have plenty of that. He really has nothing to worry about, unless the police around Wilmington, Delaware are zealots opposed to bicycling.

It's usually motorists, not police, that don't understand the concept of "blocking traffic."

(He did ask for comments, didn't he? :) )