Advocacy & Safety - Ordinary "high wheel" bike is not a bike!

Regarding Ordinary or "high wheel" bicycles and the California Vehicle Code:



Under the state's vehicle code, a bicycle is defined as "any device upon which a person may ride, which is propelled by human power through a system of belts, chains or gears. ..."

Sgt. Paul McCarthy of the Redwood City division of the California Highway Patrol agreed Wednesday that "this device" does not seem to be classified as a bicycle. "Legally, it doesn't appear he has an obligation to follow the sections of the vehicle code pertaining to a bicycle."

The full article is here in the Palo Alto Daily News (http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2007-12-6-12-06-07-pa-high-wheel). I see Martin rolling through town on his ordinary on occasion. He's the kind of guy who waves to everybody and is very positive and talkative. I can picture him talking his way out of traffic tickets when he's stopped by the cops.

The article, BTW, says, "But bringing the high-wheeler to a complete stop requires him to jump off and hold the bike or turn the wheel sidewise. Typically at intersections, he tries to lean on a pole or go around in circles, he said." I've seen Martin trackstand on his high wheeler, also.

Hmmm, you caused me to go review my own state's regs:

(4) "Bicycle" means every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride and designed to travel on two tandem wheels.

(92) "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle.

So it looks like HVP's with other than 'two tandem wheels' pass through a similar loophole here, but a Razor scooter fits the definition of a bicycle. Some potential for mischief there...

Ride a trike . . .

Don't compare Louisiana, or Quebec, with the rest of the USA and Canada. LA and QB use Napoleonic Code for their legal systems, while the rest of us are based on English common law.

Besides, you know what we say about California....

Ride a trike . . .
In AZ where we live it is most likely still a 'bicycle'

" 6. "Bicycle" means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either:
(a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter.
(b) Three wheels in contact with the ground, any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter"

And razor scooters are not.

Al

The article, BTW, says, "But bringing the high-wheeler to a complete stop requires him to jump off and hold the bike or turn the wheel sidewise. Typically at intersections, he tries to lean on a pole or go around in circles, he said." I've seen Martin trackstand on his high wheeler, also.

One of my friends rides a penny farthing on occasion (a 70s replica), and if he needs to make an abrupt stop or crazy maneuver he stands on the back peg, and footjams the rear tire into a skid. The bike can then be drifted through very tight corners. It pretty much blew my mind the first time I saw him do it.

The rider mentions in the article that he doesn't have brakes which may make this a moot point?

According to the CA DMV website:

21201. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

The rider mentions in the article that he doesn't have brakes which may make this a moot point?
No, the whole point is that it isn't a bicycle, so he doesn't have to follow laws like that.

No, the whole point is that it isn't a bicycle, so he doesn't have to follow laws like that.

Right, but aren't vehicles required to have brakes? And if not a vehicle* or a horse, what else can legally use the roadway? (Pedestrians of course, but only for very specific non-vehicular cases.)

*edit: It is implied that vehicles includes devices who's operators are considered by law to be drivers of vehicles.

Al

I never noticed this before but Delaware includes unicycles under the definition of a bicycle:

"Bicycle" shall include that certain class of vehicles which are exclusively human-powered by means of foot pedals, which the driver normally rides astride, which have not in excess of three wheels and which may be commonly known as unicycles, bicycles and tricycles. The term "bicycle" also includes a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 miles per hour. [http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c001/index.shtml#TopOfPage]

Here's Florida's definition from section 316.003(2): "Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of not more than 20 miles per hour on level ground upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels. The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground when the seat is adjusted to its highest position or a scooter or similar device. No person under the age of 16 may operate or ride upon a motorized bicycle."

This patchwork definition tries to include trikes and exclude low powered scooters with seats. An ordinary would be a bike, but a unicycle apparently isn't. The legislatures goes through such machinations in an attempt to determine when a driver's license is needed. In Florida, to ride a motorized scooter you need a DL.

No, the whole point is that it isn't a bicycle, so he doesn't have to follow laws like that. OIC, didn't realize that.

BTW, a bicycle is not a vehicle in California; it is a device, the operator of which has the rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles.

It looks like a high-wheeler is a bicycle in Missouri:

Bicycle and motorized bicycle, defined.
307.180. As used in sections 307.180 to 307.193:

(1) The word "bicycle" shall mean every vehicle propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, or two parallel wheels and one or two forward or rear wheels, all of which are more than fourteen inches in diameter, except scooters and similar devices;

But it probably wouldn't meet the equipment requirement:

Brakes required.
307.183. Every bicycle and motorized bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its driver to stop the bicycle or motorized bicycle within twenty-five feet from a speed of ten miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.

In some states, a high-wheeler may be neither a vehicle nor a bicycle, in which case it's legal status may be questionable. Many juristictions prohibit certain devices (skate-boards, roller skates, etc.) from using the roadway but I bet few laws consider a high-wheeler.

According to the The Uniform Vehicle Code, traffic laws apply to a human-powered vehicles:

11-1202. Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human powered vehicles
Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle...

And we're back to the question of whether a high-wheeler is a vehicle (I don't have a copy of the part of the UVC that defines a vehicle).

No, the whole point is that it isn't a bicycle, so he doesn't have to follow laws like that.That's true. But then the questions arise, "what is it?" and "is it legal to operate whatever it is on the roadway?"

There may not be clear-cut answers.

And if not a vehicle or a horse, what else can legally use the roadway? (Pedestrians of course, but only for very specific non-vehicular cases.)
It's not clear, and the cops aren't sure either. The article suggests pedestrian. Here's CA pedestrian law (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c5.htm). It kind of assumes pedestrians walk on sidewalks. There are a few references to "walking," though the definition mentions wheelchairs. As long as he's yielding to cars, he may be completely legal.

It was a bicycle before bicycles had chains,and somehow thru the years it's not a bicycle now???? Somehow that doesn't pass the common sense test....OH!,Right!,I'm on the internet.....

It was a bicycle before bicycles had chains,and somehow thru the years it's not a bicycle now???? Somehow that doesn't pass the common sense test....

I concur. It is curious that the original pedal-driven bicycle, the "ordinary," is evidently no longer legally considered a bicycle in California.

The entire debate is as silly and pointless as defining a 7-passenger minivan as a light truck instead of a car, to get around fuel efficiency, safety, and emissions standards. If it looks like a duck, rides like a duck, is used as a duck, ... .

Given my below-average level of physical coordination, there is no way I am going to attempt to ride either a unicycle or an ordinary, or even a fixed-gear safety cycle or track bike, in traffic, but I see no point to harrassing and playing legal games with those who choose to do so. Martin sounds like a fabulous ambassador for road bicyclists everywhere, and he merits a tip of the ol' stovepipe hat or 1890s cycling cap.

If it isn't defined as a bicycle in the CA code then he isn't even allowed to operate in a roadway. Same as skateboarding down the middle of the street or whatever (bicycle is a vehicle, skateboard isn't). So I don't think you'll get out of a ticket that way.

In AZ where we live it is most likely still a 'bicycle'

" 6. "Bicycle" means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either:
(a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter.
(b) Three wheels in contact with the ground, any of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter"

And razor scooters are not.

Al

Seems that some of the most popular folding bikes aren't either.

If it isn't defined as a bicycle in the CA code then he isn't even allowed to operate in a roadway. Same as skateboarding down the middle of the street or whatever (bicycle is a vehicle, skateboard isn't). So I don't think you'll get out of a ticket that way.


You may be correct, but I still think this is a good example of out-of-control legal literalism. Because of historic vehicle designations, owners of Model Ts can legally operate on public roads (something I do not recommend, given that the vehicle has no front brakes and a bizarre set of controls); how is an "ordinary" bicycle any different?

You may be correct, but I still think this is a good example of out-of-control legal literalism. Because of historic vehicle designations, owners of Model Ts can legally operate on public roads (something I do not recommend, given that the vehicle has no front brakes and a bizarre set of controls); how is an "ordinary" bicycle any different?

I was thinking along the same lines-- that a high-wheeler is a classic vehicle and maybe should be exempt from the requirement for a brake. Anybody who rides such a thing has surely thought about how they are going to stop. A front brake would probably be downright dangerous; a rear brake might be ineffective. No matter what brakes are on the thing, stopping safely is going depend on the skill of the rider.

We don't really know what would happen if a case ever got to court. A court might well rule that the thing is street legal, as is-- that the legislature never intended to prohibit the use of a classic bicycle on the roadway.

Or, the court might rule some other way. Who knows?

But wouldn't a court case be a waste of time? Don't the courts have more improtant things to consider?

What about other two-wheeled contraptions? What if I weld a couple of frames together and create a bicycle with a seat that's six feet off the ground? (in my younger days, I actually did something like that :D) As long as I put brakes on it and meet the definition of a bicycle, it should be legal, right? But who, besides me, is going to determine if it's safe? (not that I'd ever be crazy enough to ride such a thing in traffic)

Legal nit-picking and excessive nannying aside, I think the cops should leave this guy alone. As long as he doesn't do anything obviously dangerous, or violate any traffic laws, they have no valid reason to stop him. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even for cops. :D

What about other two-wheeled contraptions? What if I weld a couple of frames together and create a bicycle with a seat that's six feet off the ground? (in my younger days, I actually did something like that :D) As long as I put brakes on it and meet the definition of a bicycle, it should be legal, right? But who, besides me, is going to determine if it's safe? (not that I'd ever be crazy enough to ride such a thing in traffic)
There are definitions, and then there are requirements.

21201. (c) No person shall operate upon any highway a bicycle which is of such a size as to prevent the operator from safely stopping the bicycle, supporting it in an upright position with at least one foot on the ground, and restarting it in a safe manner.

But if you took a bike and welded a tiny mini-trailer of two rollerblade wheels to the frame, you wouldn't be a bike anymore in AZ, FL, DE, or MO, according to the above definitions. (Strangely enough, this wouldn't work in California.)

Alaska law appears to not allow for trikes, as it specifies two wheels.

There are definitions, and then there are requirements.


But if you took a bike and welded a tiny mini-trailer of two rollerblade wheels to the frame, you wouldn't be a bike anymore in AZ, FL, DE, or MO, according to the above definitions. (Strangely enough, this wouldn't work in California.)

I just checked DE laws about trailers and apparently, "trailers" don't exist in the bike world:

"Trailer" includes a mobile home, park trailer, travel trailer, house trailer, office trailer, camping trailer or any vehicle without motive power designed to carry property or passengers wholly on its own structure and to be drawn by a motor vehicle. (emphasis mine)