Advocacy & Safety - Get on the path

Until now, I thought a police officer could order me to ride my bike on a path, if the path was adjacent to the roadway. But here's a piece of news for people in Georgia, if they didn't already know, which is probably also true in other states:

"Whenever a usable path has been provided adjacent to a roadway and designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders, then the appropriate governing authority may require that bicycle riders usesuch path and not use those sections of the roadway so specified by such local governing authority.

Where I live, there is no such thing as a path "designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders." They are all multi-use paths, accessable by pedestrians, rollerbladers, and dogs. Therefore, according to the above law, I have the right to use the roadway--period.

HOWEVER, if "exclusive use of bicycle riders" means, "exclusive of motorized vehicles," then I could be wrong. Does anyone really know what this law means?

Where I live, there is no such thing as a path "designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders." They are all multi-use paths, accessable by pedestrians, rollerbladers, and dogs. Therefore, according to the above law, I have the right to use the roadway--period.

HOWEVER, if "exclusive use of bicycle riders" means, "exclusive of motorized vehicles," then I could be wrong. Does anyone really know what this law means?

Interesting issue, LBM.

As written, the law is very clear. Bikes only is bikes only. However, as is always true in these cases, you have to bear in mind what is *really* going to happen when a cop and a judge are faced with your riding on the road. About that, it's obviously difficult to make accurate predictions despite the clear language here.

Having said that, if I were you I wouldn't confine myself to a multi-use path, with (some) confidence that if it came to it I would win the case in court. Don't take the issue lightly, however. It's always a good idea to look over tips and information online about bicycles and traffic cases. Some cyclists have fought and won traffic cases, and their experience is instructive (some battles are harder than you might think, even over clear-cut issues). Among other things, carry a copy of the law with you, and be prepared to show it to the cop if he insists you get on the path.

Be sure the path is really multi-use, too. I've lived in areas in which the path is nominally bikes-only, but is used continuously and with the tacit approval of police by everyone else. What would a judge say about such a path? Is it a bikes-only path, or is it a multi-use path? It's hard to say; obviously you wouldn't want to bet your *life* on a judge ruling one way or the other, but I think it's worth betting the hassle of fighting a ticket.

Remember, there are plenty of cases of police confronting or even ticketing cyclists for plainly legal behavior. Near here, a commuter was warned by a policewoman about his merging into the left turn lane to make a left turn. Now, this is *plainly* legal in my state, and explicitly protected in the law. Yet, she threatened him with a ticket despite his protests. (Later, she wrote him a ticket for "riding too slow", which he eventually won on *appeal*)

In general, and as you surely already know, police are usually willing to leave adult cyclists alone, if cyclists carry themselves on the road responsibly. That is, if you're signaling, holding your position, obeying the traffic signals, and so on, you're likely to avoid any encounters with police over (what are for them) minor traffic offenses you *really* commit, much less encounters for behavior that is legal but believed illegal. You never know, though. There are several stories every year on this forum about cops hassling or ticketing riders for perfectly legal behavior on the road.

So, it's a risk for you to defy a cop here, but one that I think is worth running if you are prepared to fight capably in court. Just my advice, however... you're the one who's got to pay the price.

Since California has a mandatory sidepath law for pedestrians but not for bicyclists, I wonder whether our local governments can require bicyclists to use paths, where available. Fortunately, the brand-new sidepath near my home is designated "pedestrian only," which suits me just fine as a jogger and as a bicyclist.

Interesting issue, LBM.

As written, the law is very clear. Bikes only is bikes only. However, as is always true in these cases, you have to bear in mind what is *really* going to happen when a cop and a judge are faced with your riding on the road. About that, it's obviously difficult to make accurate predictions despite the clear language here.

Having said that, if I were you I wouldn't confine myself to a multi-use path, with (some) confidence that if it came to it I would win the case in court. Don't take the issue lightly, however. It's always a good idea to look over tips and information online about bicycles and traffic cases. Some cyclists have fought and won traffic cases, and their experience is instructive (some battles are harder than you might think, even over clear-cut issues). Among other things, carry a copy of the law with you, and be prepared to show it to the cop if he insists you get on the path.

A lot of valid points in the post I've snipped above. I have never actually had a cop try to order me onto a path, although once a road construction worker near Murwillumbah did (on that occasion I just used the path until I was past the construction site, then got straight back onto the road). However, it would be different with a cop because their juridiction would extend beyond a construction site.

Having said that, every path around here is designated "multi-use" - even those signed as bikepaths. Not only that, the law here only refers to a bikelane rather than a bikepath. I think that wording is important as they are two completely different animals. If I ever did get such an order from a cop, I would have no hesitation challenging it, both on the spot and in court.

Another thing to ask. Does "appropriate governing authority" actually include police? Or is it just the local council and other levels of government responsible for road building and implementation of traffic laws? Perhaps they are merely referring to freeways and so on, many of which ban cyclists anyway -- this could be the statute that gives the local council the authority to make that decision.