Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Was pulled over and ticketed on my commute yesterday

^You were taking the full lane, when there was a shoulder beside the lane. Under Tenn Law, you had a right to do so if safe operation required it.

If however, it would have been safe and practical to ride on the shoulder, or farther right in the traffic lane, then I think there could be an argument that you were impeding traffic.

IMHO, it comes down to whether safe operation required you to take the lane.

None of the rest of us were there, and thus we don't know the answer what is really the central question.

Pics of the road would help.

The shoulder is not part of the roadway. The law says you have to keep right as practicable on the roadway. There's no legal requirement to use the shoulder, even if not doing so impedes traffic.

According to TN law, you're not a bicycle and you're not a motor vehicle. You're a vehicle, specifically a non-motorized vehicle. Section 55-8-178 covers non-motorized vehicles. Section 55-8-115 covers slow-moving vehicles.

They got nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the officer is also lying about getting lots of complaints.

Somebody's not telling the truth here. The OP says there was very light traffic. Later on I read something about a 1/4 mile of traffic backed up behind him.

How could he possibly have that much traffic backed up behind him, especially when there was an available passing lane?

Not sure who is right here and I don't have any way of telling.

My advice for a 100 fine would be to not involve an attorney unless you want to pay 500 to maybe save 100.

I would go to court myself after reading up as much as possible on the law. Talk to the DA or judge or whomever. And don't get the type of attitude you see often here with the anti cagers. It could blow up in your face even if you are correct.

Good luck.

Somebody's not telling the truth here. The OP says there was very light traffic. Later on I read something about a 1/4 mile of traffic backed up behind him.

How could he possibly have that much traffic backed up behind him, especially when there was an available passing lane?


More to the point, if there was a quarter mile of traffic backed up, how did the officer ever get to the front of the line to pull him over?

what ever happened with this story?

I wonder if it was actually held up a quarter mile of traffic or held up traffic for a quarter mile

It would be nice to get a follow up on this.
First point I want to make is that, you the cyclist get to define what is practicable. It means farther to the left to some than to others.
Second, the google site shows the street view and the road is a three lane. The center turn lane is not a passing lane.

Third, the definition of impeding traffic assumes that you are a motor vehicle purposely slowing down traffic by not driving at a speed the motor vehicle can safely maintain. Since a bicycle can not attain traffic speeds normally, or safely, a sensible judge would normally find for the cyclist. If the OP is a LAB member, he should call the LAB office and ask about cycling defense attorneys in his area.

It would be nice to get a follow up on this.
First point I want to make is that, you the cyclist get to define what is practicable. It means farther to the left to some than to others.
Second, the google site shows the street view and the road is a three lane. The center turn lane is not a passing lane.

Third, the definition of impeding traffic assumes that you are a motor vehicle purposely slowing down traffic by not driving at a speed the motor vehicle can safely maintain. Since a bicycle can not attain traffic speeds normally, or safely, a sensible judge would normally find for the cyclist. If the OP is a LAB member, he should call the LAB office and ask about cycling defense attorneys in his area.

He made three posts and disappeared.

http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?do=finduser&u=138541

he's doing time for impeding traffic.........

So on the one hand you admit to impeding traffic, then you complain because you are being treated like any other vehicle on the road.......If you can't find a way to NOT impede traffic (another route, earlier start, staying more to the right, etc) then best you don't commute. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one (as Spock would say). Pay the fine, find a way to commute and get along with your fellow commuters, regardless of what they commute in.....that does presuppose that there is an alternative route... if there isn't then just accept that you can't ride your bike?Our right to travel on public roads, not merely access to destinations, is a derived constitutional right, as Bob Mionske (http://velonews.com/bob-mionske) points out in his book, "Bicycling & The Law (http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Law-Your-Rights-Cyclist/dp/1931382999)" on page 11 with the following quote:
"The rights of locomotion, freedom of movement, to go where one pleases, and to use the public streets in a way that does not interfere with the personal liberty of others are basic values 'implicit in the concept of ordained liberty' protected by due the process clause of the fourteenth amendment." - Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, US District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (1976)

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one (as Spock would say).


What are you rambling on about? Those words were never spoken by me.:)

Somebody's not telling the truth here. The OP says there was very light traffic. Later on I read something about a 1/4 mile of traffic backed up behind him.

How could he possibly have that much traffic backed up behind him, especially when there was an available passing lane?

Most of the roads I ride on my way to work are two-lanes each way or more with very light traffic but it never fails that somebody will get behind me and stay there for a mile or more. Not sure what makes the 4-wheelers do what they do and I'm a motorist too.

This post made me look up and print a "cheat sheet" of TX laws governing bikes. Very interesting. We can ride our bikes on the interstate if we can keep the minimum speed limit!

This post made me look up and print a "cheat sheet" of TX laws governing bikes. Very interesting. We can ride our bikes on the interstate if we can keep the minimum speed limit!TxDOT has apparently claimed that minimum speed limits generally don't apply to non-motorized vehicles at all -- though `545.363 Minimum Speed Regulations' seems to disagree with them. But even if they do apply, they don't apply if you're going slower for safety reasons -- and if trying to pedal fast enough to go 45 mph on your bicycle might give you a heart attack, that sounds like a safety reason to me ...

There was a big stink (http://community.livejournal.com/austincommunity/6348172.html) a few months back when the Austin Critical Mass ride went on the upper deck of IH-35 for a few miles and it was videoed (http://www.vimeo.com/1835832) and put on the Internet. So far, nobody seems to have been able to find any law that actually prohibits it, and two different departments at the TxDOT have said it's legal (but not suggested) and illegal -- but the people who said it was legal seem to have done more research into it. Though one key difference might be that IH-35 in Austin has no posted minimum speed limits -- no idea about other interstates/cities.

Any updates?

I received a traffic ticket yesterday and was told that I could not commute by bike through Gallatin, Tennessee anymore. After not being able to sleep and getting online to post this message on the Bentrider Online forum, I was advised to copy my first post and send it to you with the hopes that you may be able to help me out in some fashion.

So Knightslayer, did you dispute the ticket, what came of this story?

There is no federal regulation that restricts bicycle use in interstate highways. States may make certain prohibitions.
Here's the Federal Highway Admin's website that states this:
http://fhwainter.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/freeways.htm#bicycles