Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist Ticketed for "Impeding Traffic"

This morning, a friend of mine (Coworker, and cycling buddy) was ticketed during his morning commute to work. While riding through a section of Oakland County, MI, a police officer approached him from behind, and using his bullhorn asked him to “Please ride on the sidewalk”. A bit perplexed, but not wanting to cause trouble for anyone, the cyclist proceeded to ride on the road, looking for a convenient, and safe, transition from the road to the sidewalk. He would have had to stop and get off his bike to get to the sidewalk at that instant, due to the rain gutter / curb at the edge of the road. He determined that his best location for doing this was at an upcoming intersection, where he would proceed through the intersection, and then onto the sidewalk. As he approached the intersection, a right turn lane opened up – he stayed the course in the lane he was in so as to not interfere with any vehicular traffic making right turns. The police officer, noting the lack of immediate compliance to his request, followed up with “I told you to use the sidewalk”. The cyclist responded, stating that he was intending to use the sidewalk once through the intersection, and that there was no safe access to the sidewalk up til that point. As he proceeded through the intersection, the police officer followed him into the gas station on the corner, turned on his lights, and stopped the cyclist. Upon being asked by the cyclist if he had broken any laws, or caused any problems, the officer told him that he had been riding in the middle of the road. I’ve ridden with this person several times over the past 3 years, and know that he doesn’t ride in the middle of the road ever – in fact he and I tend to be on the conservative side if anything, ourselves getting irritated when fellow cyclists stretch or bend laws to their liking. He does stay as far to the right as safely possible. My only guess is that the officer was irked by him not staying to the right of the right turn lane. When the cyclist reminded the officer that cyclists have a right to ride on the road, the officer got irritated, and issued him a ticket – for IMPEDING TRAFFIC. This, at 6:00 am, when the only vehicle in sight was the officer himself. I sense a courtroom visit on this one! By the way – this same cyclist has been complimented several times by DRIVERS over the past few years for how visible he makes himself (dual beam headlight, two tail lights, one on the bike, the other on his helmet).

Hope he defends the ticket. The cop obviously got out of bed on the wrong side.

This is rediculous, and needs to be addressed. Do you have any contact information for officials in your area? (mayor, congressman, police review board, etc.?) I would be more than happy to ask them to review their 1950's style take on bicycling.

Originally posted by pel-o-ton
I sense a courtroom visit on this one!

I'd be surprised if the ticket didn't get thrown out of court. Still it's annoying to have to appear. However, it'd be interesting to see if the officer shows up... especially if the police car was equipped with a dash-mounted video camera. I wonder if police officers get reprimanded for issuing unwarranted tickets. Maybe your friend could file a harassment complaint if this happens again.

Pel-o-ton,

What road was he on. I ride all over oakland county and I am just wondering where I need to look out for misguided police.

Steve

I've noticed this sticker on the back of many racks and messenger bags around town.... Really helps spread the message. (Of course, this is referring to a particular Oregon ordinance, would be different in your state.)

Sounds like an over zealous cop. Unfortunately they're out there. The best course, as we all know, is to be extremely polite and not question the officer. This is very difficult when officer jerkball pulls you over. Regardless, it's not the time to find out who the alfa male/female is. Just put your tail between your legs and take it. Leave your fight for court and show up prepared. I hope your friend fights this and wins.

Just tell him to quote laws that actually say it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk as well as those that grant riding on the road and riding as far right as SAFETY allows.

Please keep us up to date and let us know of any information pertaining to an actual court decision.

Okay, obviously the ticket it going to be able to be fought. We need to look at some factors why the officer wanted the person on the sidewalk.

What type of road was it? Single lane either direction with a sidewalk, two lane both direction. Obviously there was rain. That creates a hazard in its own.

Was it just the officer there or was there some traffic? Were there any vehicles behind the officer?


Just tell him to quote laws that actually say it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk

I would like to see the actual law that states that. There isn't one here in Arizona.

If the officer felt that it would be more safe for the cyclist to be on the sidewalk and told the cyclist to go to the sidewalk then he should do so. There is such thing as disobeying a lawful order by a police officer. Now I do commend him for finding a safe place to do so and he actaully has that right.

He may not get out of the impeding if the officer does show and has a different story as to road conditions and traffic. Make sure your friend does his research and keeps a good memory of traffic and weather conditions.

Originally posted by lamajo25

He may not get out of the impeding if the officer does show and has a different story as to road conditions and traffic.

Road conditions and traffic have no bearing on a cyclist's right to the road, unless a road is specifically signed otherwise.

There may be laws on the books in given localities that require slow-moving traffic to pull over to let accumulating vehicles pass. This was not the case here, as described by pel-o-ton. There were no accumulating vehicles, and any traffic approaching the cyclist from behind would be able to pass.

It's unfortunate that the cyclist in this instance will have to go to court and waste his own and everybody else's time and money to have the charges dismissed, since one cannot by definition impede traffic by riding lawfully. The best that can be hoped for is that the officer involved will not be so embarrassed by his ignorant mistake that he will become even more biased against cyclists than he obviously already is.

RichC

I would call up the police station that that police officer is located out of and talk to the chief officer (or whatever he/she is called) and speak with him about this. I got a ticket a year ago and called up the station and left a message for them (small police station, and I got voice mail) I did not name the officer but stated what the law stated and asked that he have his police officers review the laws. Never got a call back but cop did not show up to court either.

Road conditions and traffic have no bearing on a cyclist's right to the road, unless a road is specifically signed otherwise.

If the officer feels it unsafe in the roadway due to adverse road conditions, a judge is going to side with him. Unfortunately that's where you hope to have a sympathetic judge. Officers are sworn public servants who decide whether a situation is safe for a person or not.

Kev you have a great idea. Chief, Lieutenant, Captain, someone is going to be able to help him out. I don't disagree that the person had the right to the road but if an officer requests you to move out of it then it needs to be done. Still kudos to the rider for making sure he found a safer place to do so and that is his right.

I sure would like to know what area that was. I also do a lot of riding in Oakland County and it would be nice to know where this occurred. I would also like to file a complaint with that local police department if appropriate. More details would really be helpful.

Complaint wouldn't necessarily be needed. Just a talk with a higher up may be able to get the situation resolved. Pel-o-ton, if the person ticketed feels he wants to talk to the law enforcement agency, advise him to definately use the citing officers name. This would help make the next time easier.

Originally posted by lamajo25
If the officer feels it unsafe in the roadway due to adverse road conditions, a judge is going to side with him. Unfortunately that's where you hope to have a sympathetic judge. Officers are sworn public servants who decide whether a situation is safe for a person or not.

If that's the case, it's simply the most ridiculous law in existence! Let's say hypothetically that I got a ticket for that this afternoon (unlikely as it might be). How can someone who never rides on that stretch of road be in a better position to judge than someone who rides it everyday? How can someone who has never so much as ridden around the block judge the safety of cycling any location better than someone with over 100,000km of riding experience? The simple answer is, they can't. I hope the judge takes this into account.

Just on the "impeding traffic" thing. I will once again pose the question I posed earlier. What sort of reaction would one get if they ticketed every driver who "impeded the flow of traffic"? This is something thousands of them do everyday and they need absolutely no help from cyclists to achieve this goal.

If this ever happened to me, I'd be not only defending the issue in court, I'd be lodging a formal complaint with the Queensland Chief Commissioner of Police and hoping to get the officer concerned a nice little pink slip. His job is to enforce the law as it is written, and I don't see that happening here.

If this ever happened to me, I'd be not only defending the issue in court, I'd be lodging a formal complaint with the Queensland Chief Commissioner of Police and hoping to get the officer concerned a nice little pink slip. His job is to enforce the law as it is written, and I don't see that happening here.

I don't want to do this again, but I have to, to defend the Law Enforcement Community. It is the duty of every law enforcement officer to enforce all laws and to ensure the safety of the public. I don't care if you've ridden through there for 10 years before this person has become an officer, if he feels you life may be in danger he has the duty to have you get out of the road. If you refuse you are in violation of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer.


Just on the "impeding traffic" thing. I will once again pose the question I posed earlier. What sort of reaction would one get if they ticketed every driver who "impeded the flow of traffic"? This is something thousands of them do everyday and they need absolutely no help from cyclists to achieve this goal.

I guess that I don't understand this. You feel that by vehicles in traffic jams are impeding traffic. Impeding traffic only applies to those vehicles that are traveling slower than the flow of traffic. Normally at a rate of less than the flow by about 15 to 20 miles per hour.

I'm going with "this police officer is sadly misinformed regarding the applicability of the law as it applies to bicyclists" on this one. I am going to look for the applicable Michigan statute on the web. Can one of you Michigan cyclists post it here for the benefit of the ROU?

Peloton, you should send a copy of this thread to the Leage of Michigan Bicyclists. I believe they have lawyers or can recommend a team of local lawyers in either Southfield or Detroit. Their web site is lmb.org. I live in Oakland county and am also interested where this incident occured. I ride several times a week with a fellow who is the Treasurer of LMB. He is on a mailing list about local incidents. Recently, a cyclists was ticketed for riding on Southfield freeway service drive near Ford Road. The service drive has homes and businesses on it and should be treated as a local road. I am watching the outcome of this ticket also. Keep us posted.

I found this really fast: Internation Bicycle Fund site w/ links to US statutes by state, at:

http://www.ibike.org/education/laws.htm

Michigan:

http://www.lmb.org/michcode.htm

If this is the full statute, which I am not sure of, it's pretty weak on allowing cyclists to take the lane, compared to the Florida and Oregon statutes, for example, which adopt the Uniform Vehicle Code provisions allowing cyclists to 'take the lane' in various circumstances, such as (1) to avoid hazards, (2) when traveling at the speed of traffic, and (3) when the lane is too narrow to safely share with a motor vehicle.

Here's a review of the Michigan law as it pertains to cyclists which gives the Michigan statute a grade of F- for cyclists, not surprising since Michigan is the home of 'Motor City':

http://www.geocities.com/fredoswald/bike-laws/Michigan.rtf

Here's the 'official state' version; looks like nothing new here:

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-300-1949-VI-OPERATION-OF-BICYCLES-MOTORCYCLES-AND-TOY-VEHICLES

Note the phrase 'toy vehicles'....So, Michigan gives cyclists all the rights and responsibilities of motor vehicle operators, but requires them to ride on the extreme right and use a separated path if provided, and doesn't provide for any of the standard UVC exceptions for taking the lane. I'd say that this is a pretty backwards statute.

Good luck with this case, I hope you get a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge, and make some new case law that reverses some of these repressive statutes!

one flippant defense you could present, as all who know a bit about critical mass would tell you, is declare in the courtroom, "i wasn't blocking traffic, i was traffic."

however you might want to back it up with some legal stuff that randya has provided. if you feel like it, you could use this, as every encounter with the police, as a springboard to make some changes, but that can take energy and time, and a lot of people are already crunched in those areas.

w/r/t the comment about all officers enforcing all the laws, this is obviously two quite separate things in theory and in practice. i've gone on ride-alongs with the police to get a different perspective, and they look the other way constantly if they don't want to deal with something. it's just human nature. so as far as this guy, i think he was just having a bad day, and he's also clueless about the imminent demise of the automobile.

scott

That will be a morning in court with an oficer that probably will not show ... case dismissed. Unfortunately, you'll have to lose some personal time to take care of the situation.

A bit of a follow up, and a little more information as well - I suggested that he email one of the local cycling clubs, (which he has), talk with the LMB, which he is in process of doing (outashape, your suggestion of sending this thread to LMB is an excellent one), and write a letter to the editor of local newspapers (as an educational tool for the general public). The community involved is Sylvan Lake, the cyclist was approaching Middlebelt on Orchard Lake.

lamajo - It was not raining - weather conditions were not an issue, and have already been noted. The total distance from the officer's initial communication to the intersection, where the cyclist was ticketed, was at most 200 yards. The speed limit through that area is 35 mph. This cyclist typically rides very near 20 mph. From a legal decision in the Ann Arbor area, it was decided that "impeding traffic" did NOT apply to cyclists who were riding legally. From the cyclists own personal history (he was nearly hit by a car while riding on that very same sidewalk three years ago when he began riding), the road is safer than the sidewalk - which most bicyclists have come to realize over the years.... cars coming out of driveways and parking lots, as a rule, do NOT stop and look for cyclists before crossing the sidewalk - they stop and look for traffic at the roadway.

Kev, great idea on contacting the station - from what I have been told, Sylvan Lake's police force consists of 3 full time officers, and 1 part time. Not that size matters..... :rolleyes:

MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
(excerpts related to BICYCLES)
...
257.657 Rights and duties of persons riding bicycle or moped or operating low-speed vehicle.

Every person riding a bicycle or moped or operating a low-speed vehicle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.
...
257.660 Bicycles, low-speed vehicles, motorcycles, or mopeds; operation on roadway; use of bicycle path; passing; operation of bicycle or moped on sidewalk; operation of low-speed vehicle on highway, road, or street; exception.

(1) A person operating a bicycle, low-speed vehicle, or moped upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane and a motor vehicle shall not be driven in such a manner as to deprive a motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated 2 abreast in a single lane.

(2) A person riding a bicycle, motorcycle, or moped upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on a path or part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of those vehicles.

(3) Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may, by local ordinance, be required to use that path. Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider who is less than 16 years of age shall use that path unless accompanied by an adult.

(4) A person operating a motorcycle, moped, low-speed vehicle, or bicycle shall not pass between lines of traffic, but may pass on the left of traffic moving in his or her direction in the case of a 2-way street, or on the left or right of traffic in the case of a 1-way street, in an unoccupied lane.

(5) A person operating a bicycle on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing the pedestrian.

(6) A moped or low-speed vehicle shall not be operated on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians.

(7) A low-speed vehicle shall be operated at a speed of not to exceed 25 miles per hour and shall not be operated on a highway, road, or street with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except for the purpose of crossing that highway, road, or street. The state transportation department may prohibit the operation of a low-speed vehicle on any highway under its jurisdiction if it determines that the prohibition is necessary in the interest of public safety.

(8) This section shall not apply to a police officer in the performance of his or her official duties.



Just for the sake of clarity. I thought I would post these. A bicyclist has no duty to ride on the sidewalk. The cop was ignorant as well as overbearing. This is fairly typical for much of Oakland county. I would take this to court just to see the judge give him a tounge-lashing for wasting everyone's time.

Dan

i can sum up all of this. Police are generally egotistical *******s, power tripping idiots for the most part. i know some of you are going to say my husband is a ... my friend is a ... and ofcourse you think all these cops are great people if you know them and there ARE many exceptopns. i have met some really good cops but in general they are *******s. They think they are god.

It's not exactly the most progressive legislation with regards to cyclists. What to roadies do? - I clock up speeds greater than 25 mph on my MTB.

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that the framers of this law saw bicycles, mopeds and low-speed vehicles as three different kinds of conveyance. Where they mention the 25mph speed limit for low-speed vehicles, I think they are talking about back-hoes, tractors, and farm equipment.

257.657 sets out the rule and 257.660 spells out exceptions for each of bicycles, mopeds and low-speed vehicles.

Dan

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that the framers of this law saw bicycles, mopeds and low-speed vehicles as three different kinds of conveyance. Where they mention the 25mph speed limit for low-speed vehicles, I think they are talking about back-hoes, tractors, and farm equipment.

257.657 sets out the rule and 257.660 spells out exceptions for each of bicycles, mopeds and low-speed vehicles.

Dan

Sorry - I think you're right. Perhaps they are more progressive than I thought and that they recognise that bicycles aren't slow moving vehicles :)

pel-o-ton,

Do any of the local cycling clubs or associations in your area have programs to monitor and educate local law enforcement agencies on the rights and responsibilities of cyclist? If so, that may be a good place for him to start.

We're pretty luck in the City of Atlanta, in that officers, even if they don't know the law, don't seem to bother lawfully operating cyclists (at least in my own experience). I'm not sure if the situation is different in the suburbs here, since I mostly ride in the City of Atlanta and Dekalb and Fulton Counties.

One further thought ... The duty of a sworn officer is to uphold the law. Most of the police officers I know make an attempt to do this to the best of their knowledge and ability. But officers can't memorized every specialized law on the books. Consequently it's incumbent on the cycling community to insist that traffic law pertaining to cyclists be taken seriously within law enforcement agencies, and that officers learn the laws pertaining to cycling and act according to those laws.

Once a particular law enforcement agency has become aware of the rights of cyclists to use the public roads, if they violate the laws of their own state by willfully misinterpreting these laws by requiring that cyclists do dangerous things (like riding mashed against the curb) I think cyclists have a legitimate right to take the problem up with whoever monitors and whoever accredits police agencies in the state.

Originally posted by lamajo25
I don't want to do this again, but I have to, to defend the Law Enforcement Community. It is the duty of every law enforcement officer to enforce all laws and to ensure the safety of the public.

Yeah, fine, but this was just some cop who was ignorant and nasty. Your theory presupposes that every cop knows all about vehicular cycling, or is even familiar with the law on the subject, and as we all know, that just ain't so.

RichC

i can sum up all of this. Police are generally egotistical *******s, power tripping idiots for the most part.

This statment is all too often true! My God how many bicycle riders can this one guy harass! Most towns have far more pressing problems than a bicycle rider "impeding the flow of traffic"! Boy that's some service he is performing for the town, keeping those nasty bike riders on the side walks where they BELONG! I would be willing to bet my hat, that this same COP passed bicycle riders riding the wrong direction and has never said a word to them. If anyone needs to be ticketed it's riders, riding in the WRONG direction!
I hope this officer is shown to be the A$$ he is!

In Pennsylvania, it's not necessarily illegal to ride on the sidewalk, but cyclists are only required to ride as far to the right of the lane AS IS SAFE. This means that they can take the lane if they feel they have to. And, you can't impede traffic...you ARE traffic!

This situation just annoys me. There are so many people out there who think of bicycles as mere toys and obviously there are some policemen out there who are just as ignorant of the laws as the general public. I can't wait for the update on this one.

Sidewalk rules are usually municipal ordinances; you find them mostly in downtown areas. There are no sidewalk rules in any State traffic codes I've ever heard of.

RichC

Originally posted by pel-o-ton
The community involved is Sylvan Lake, the cyclist was approaching Middlebelt on Orchard Lake.

That is not good news for me. I ride through that intersection
on my commute. I will definetly be on the look out for the Sylvan
lake police.

I agree with the others about the LMB. On the back page of
their quarterly magazine they say that they provide legal
assistance for cyclists. They state "Our intent is to target
improper application of the law and to get favorable case law
on the books."

On a side note the laws on the books here in Michigan are not
at all current. I like the part in the code where it states that no
pedals can be sold that do not have reflectors built into the
pedal. I had read that on LMB's website before but I guess I
missed that part. That is so stupid.

Pel-o-ton I wish your friend good luck and look forward to future
posts about the outcome.

Steve

My only guess is that the officer was irked by him not staying to the right of the right turn lane. When the cyclist reminded the officer that cyclists have a right to ride on the road, the officer got irritated, and issued him a ticket – for IMPEDING TRAFFIC.


Yeah, fine, but this was just some cop who was ignorant and nasty. Your theory presupposes that every cop knows all about vehicular cycling, or is even familiar with the law on the subject, and as we all know, that just ain't so.

I know from absolute experience, if you are spoken to in any way shape or form other than in a courteous way that you will get an attitude towards the other person. I have seen people that are really bull headed to an officer and the officer is that way back. Then the same night a different stop the person is nice and is let go.

Rich just so everyone here knows, most all (I would say absolutely all but some areas may be different) officers carry a copy of the entire criminal and traffic law books with them at all times. If any questions arrise be courteous and ask politely to see what he is citing you for and have him look up the laws about cyclists and have him go over them to show that you may still have the right of way.

Secondly don't refuse or refute something an officer tells you to do. Yes that officer may have gotten out of bed on the wrong side that morning, but they are the legal authority and can tell you what to do, if you refuse you are disobeying a lawful order of a police officer. In most states that is a law.


i can sum up all of this. Police are generally egotistical *******s, power tripping idiots for the most part. i know some of you are going to say my husband is a ... my friend is a ... and ofcourse you think all these cops are great people if you know them and there ARE many exceptopns. i have met some really good cops but in general they are *******s. They think they are god.

The unfortunate thing is there are some officers that are that way. In general if you treat them like egotistical A******s, they will treat you the same. I really hope one day that you actually need their help so that your mind will be changed.

Respect them and you will be respected.

Good news - the cyclist had his day in court, the ticket was dismissed......

Good news - the cyclist had his day in court, the ticket was dismissed......
:beer:

Justice served.

lamajo, I don't understand your argument on this incident.
The officer ordered him to get on the sidewalk illegally. If the road was clear (6.00am remember?) except for the rider and the officer and cyclists are entitled to be on the highway, then the officer was exceeding his powers as well as having questionable knowledge of the law.
As for "impeding the traffic" under those conditions, assuming they have been reported accurately, he was lying.
Quite grotesque

lamajo, I don't understand your argument on this incident.
The officer ordered him to get on the sidewalk illegally. If the road was clear (6.00am remember?) except for the rider and the officer and cyclists are entitled to be on the highway, then the officer was exceeding his powers as well as having questionable knowledge of the law.
As for "impeding the traffic" under those conditions, assuming they have been reported accurately, he was lying.
Quite grotesque

That's evidently what the court found. However, a quick search of lamajo's posts would be quite a give-up as far as this issue is concerned.

Seems like this happens more in the towns that don't use bicycle police--bike cops know cycling laws better!

I see that the legal remedy in this issue is always "go to court", which can cost quite a bit for the citizen, but usually earns a police officer overtime. If this ticket was unwarranted, nobody has suggested filing a formal complaint against the officer, or pursuing an "abuse of power" charge with the D.A. While one complaint can be hidden, a large number of them can be brought out in court at a later date.

A frivolous, groundless citation such as this costs the citizen-victim at least a half-day in court.

I see that the legal remedy in this issue is always "go to court", which can cost quite a bit for the citizen, but usually earns a police officer overtime. If this ticket was unwarranted, nobody has suggested filing a formal complaint against the officer, or pursuing an "abuse of power" charge with the D.A. While one complaint can be hidden, a large number of them can be brought out in court at a later date.

It's actually been suggested more than once in the original thread (although they may have been moved in the thread-split originally). I think it's a great idea, and should I ever encounter such a situation that is exactly what I would do.

lamajo, I don't understand your argument on this incident.
The officer ordered him to get on the sidewalk illegally. If the road was clear (6.00am remember?) except for the rider and the officer and cyclists are entitled to be on the highway, then the officer was exceeding his powers as well as having questionable knowledge of the law.
As for "impeding the traffic" under those conditions, assuming they have been reported accurately, he was lying.
Quite grotesque


The simple fact is if the officer so chose to, he could have taken him for fail to obey a lawful order. Whether one was legal or not it's still a lawful order.

Guess what:


As posted by Pel-O-Ton in another post:
First, the good news - the cyclist has had his day in court, and the ticket was dismissed, as it should have been.

My closing remark to this thread, and to lamajo, is this:

Another aquaintance did just as you mentioned in the your last thread - he left the roadway, moved to the sidewalk, and returned to the roadway a short while after the officer was gone. Guess what? The officer returned, cited him for failing to obey an officer, and that ticket STUCK!!!

It's an interesting society in which an officer's instruction to perform an unlawful act is interpreted in court as a legal mandate. I suppose we do have at least one precedent: except in case of mechanical failure, it is generally illegal (and always unsafe) to stop your car on the freeway shoulder, but you are required to do so if so instructed by law enforcement. I still believe that a routine freeway stop should include the option to leave the freeway at the next available exit and to stop in a safe place. In San Diego County alone, I can recall several tragic incidents involving freeway collisions with parked or traffic-stopped cars, including one in which an officer had flagged the motorist to move into the center divider (always a bad idea), instead of to the (at least somewhat safer) right shoulder.

Oh I just have to do this because John you have made it too easy this time.


except in case of mechanical failure, it is generally illegal (and always unsafe) to stop your car on the freeway shoulder,

No, it's illegal to stop your car on the Left shoulder of the highway and or freeway because the Left side is utilized as an emergency access if traffic is backed up. You are supposed to use the far Right shoulder to get yourself out of the moving traffic's way.

Number 2:


I still believe that a routine freeway stop should include the option to leave the freeway at the next available exit and to stop in a safe place.

It is your right to stop in a safe place. If you are on a back road and you see a gas station 2 miles ahead or know that there is one 4 miles ahead that is well lit for your safety you are allowed to go there and stop there. If the officer questions why you did it, "I went to a place that is safe for both of us." They won't give you a ticket for Failure to Obey a Lawful Order. Most of them will say thank you. It is safer for both people involved. If your areas are like mine the next exit is a half to three quarter mile away and they don't mind. Make your intentions clear that that is what your are intending though. Cars should signal that they are going to be merging to the right for the stop. Cyclists should do so also to make their intentions clear.

Seems like this happens more in the towns that don't use bicycle police--bike cops know cycling laws better!

Not in Philadelphia, based on how they themselves ride (on sidewalks, against traffic, running red lights, etc.), and on how they do zero enforcement of cycling laws, utterly ignoring the flagrant violations that occur right in front of them.

RichC

It's an interesting society in which an officer's instruction to perform an unlawful act is interpreted in court as a legal mandate. I suppose we do have at least one precedent: except in case of mechanical failure, it is generally illegal (and always unsafe) to stop your car on the freeway shoulder, but you are required to do so if so instructed by law enforcement. I still believe that a routine freeway stop should include the option to leave the freeway at the next available exit and to stop in a safe place. In San Diego County alone, I can recall several tragic incidents involving freeway collisions with parked or traffic-stopped cars, including one in which an officer had flagged the motorist to move into the center divider (always a bad idea), instead of to the (at least somewhat safer) right shoulder.

Some police officers have been killed in Georgia by passing traffic while ticketing a driver.

lamajo,

Once again, I fail to see the continuity of your argument....

First, you complain about taking (less than) 200 yards for the cyclist to move from the roadway at a location he felt was safe, rather than to stop on the roadway (unsafe), unclip from his pedals on the roadway (unsafe), carry his bike over the curb to the sidewalk, and continue on his way.


A person in Michigan was cited for Impeding traffic when an officer told that person to remove him self from the roadway. The person then waited 2 football field lengths to get off the road when he should have just stopped gotten off his bike, gotten onto the sidewalk, waited for the officer to leave, and done as normal.
Instead he kept riding, disobeying a lawful order from a police officer......

Now, presumably it is ok for a motorist to drive several miles to find a safer, more secure place to stop his / her motor vehicle.


It is your right to stop in a safe place. If you are on a back road and you see a gas station 2 miles ahead or know that there is one 4 miles ahead that is well lit for your safety you are allowed to go there and stop there. If the officer questions why you did it, "I went to a place that is safe for both of us." They won't give you a ticket for Failure to Obey a Lawful Order. Most of them will say thank you. It is safer for both people involved. If your areas are like mine the next exit is a half to three quarter mile away and they don't mind. Make your intentions clear that that is what your are intending though. Cars should signal that they are going to be merging to the right for the stop. Cyclists should do so also to make their intentions clear.


Which is it? I prefer the safe method in both situations.......