Advocacy & Safety - Ohio Cyclist Beats 'Impeding Traffic' Rap on Appeal

"holding the operator to have violated the slow speed statute would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do."

This appears to be a three year old case that has just received some new press in Velonews and Centerlines:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/5496.0.html
http://www.ohiobike.org/Selz/Selz_Appeal_Explanation.htm

The whole concept of the "impeding traffic" charge is a joke anyway. Anyone who's ever tried to go anywhere that was even moderately popular at that particular time would realise that the concept of "flowing traffic" is a misnomer.

Way to go Ohio (to quote Christie)

"holding the operator to have violated the slow speed statute would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do."
Perfect.

I remember the wording of many traffic codes for bicycles to include something similar to the following example from Kansas:

8-1587. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles.

Every person riding a bicycle 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 act, except as otherwise provided in K.S.A. 8-1586 to 8-1592, inclusive, and except as to those provisions of this act which by their nature can have no application.


Impeding traffic, as outlined by this Ohio decision, seems to be inapplicable to cyclists due to the fact that cyclists are, by nature, slow-moving vehicles and are therefore not subject to such a law, because it is a law which, by it's nature, is not applicable to a bicycle. To enforce such a law (again according to the Ohio decision,) "would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways" which is not the intention of the law.

Impeding traffic, as outlined by this Ohio decision, seems to be inapplicable to cyclists due to the fact that cyclists are, by nature, slow-moving vehicles and are therefore not subject to such a law, because it is a law which, by it's nature, is not applicable to a bicycle. To enforce such a law (again according to the Ohio decision,) "would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways" which is not the intention of the law.
Of course, the decision applied specifically to this case. The decision never said that cyclists could not impede traffic, just that in this case, it was not a justified charge.

But I like the way this judge thinks.

Section 333.04(a) of the Trotwood Municipal Code provides as follows:

No person shall stop or operate a vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

The court held:

that a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can.

In the dicta, the court said two things. Seltz was traveling as fast as he could on the bike, and hence his speed was necessary for operation of his bike, safe or otherwise. The court also said that the ordinance could not reasonably be read as prohibiting bikes from the roadways altogether.

It's the second point that is most persuasive to me. The court held, reasonably, that one must interpret the statutes in the code so as to have consistency in the code as a whole. Since there are a host of other laws governing bicycles the code obviously anticipates the operation of bikes on public roadways, so the interpretation of this statute should assure that, too.

Whether we should also try and understand the legality of Seltz's behavior as explained by the "necessary for safe operation" clause is another question. How do we read the exception that a slower speed that is "necessary" for safe operation is legal?:

That *had* Seltz been able to go faster, even though he couldn't, it would have been unsafe?

That Seltz could not have gone faster, safely or otherwise?

The court chose the second reading, but I don't know that it was required to do so. What if Seltz had a one speed bike with a small gear, and could travel no faster than 5mph? Then, I don't think it would be unreasonable to read the "necessary for safe operation" in the first way rather than the second, and conclude that Seltz's 5 mph speed wasn't necessary for safe operation.

I suppose I would suggest that the clause be read in the first way, with "up to the speed of a normal, adult ridden bicycle on a typical paved road" inserted after "faster". But this suggestion is to ensure consistency with the code as a whole, and is not meant as a natural interpretation of the words of the statute.

Of course, the decision applied specifically to this case. The decision never said that cyclists could not impede traffic, just that in this case, it was not a justified charge.

The wording used in the Aus road rules says 'must not unreasonsably obstruct' and then clarifies that simply traveling more slowly than other vehicles doesn't constitute an unreasonable obstruction.

I for one only ever obstruct traffic reasonably.