Advocacy & Safety - is it really legal for a car to pass a cyclist in the same lane?

Maybe this strays to far into VC, and if it is I'll move it. My question is if it's illegal to pass a car in the same lane, which it is, where is the exception for passing a bicycle in the same lane? I don't remember seeing one in the vehicle codes I've read.

I might be mistaken but in Texas, a car can pass a bicycle in the same lane if that lane is 14 ft wide (or more).

From the Texas, bicycle law perspective, cyclists are required to ride AFRAP (as far right as practical), unless the lane is less than 14' wide or it is not safe for a bike and car to operate alongside each other. Embedded in that is those conditions is the concept that if the lane is wider and it is otherwise safe to operate alongside a bike, it is legal for a car to pass.

I live in Texas and it is usually quite safe to pass in the same lane. What often happens, however, is that motorists will give far more room to the cyclist and pass by driving far into the oncoming lane on a two lane road. While I appreciate the extra room, I have seen this almost cause head on collisions in cases where cars are backed up and a 2nd or 3rd car makes the pass in the same process and gets too close to an oncoming car (the first car making the pass had plenty of time, but the cars behind it didn't and might not have realized an oncoming car was approaching until they got out there). On one relatively busy road I have seen this a few times and stopped riding there because I didn't want to be the source of an accident, even though it wouldn't be my fault.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I think it's fine if the lane is wide enough. I also would be pretty upset if people weren't allowed to pass me in a no passing zone.
In most states it's not legal to pass a slow moving vehicle in a no passing zone, but that is almost never enforced. In the few states where it is legal, it seems like the slow moving vehicle must be going less than 1/2 the speed limit.

I have a specific legal question, where is the actual legal justification for passing another vehicle in the same lane. I don't really consider the FRAP clause to imply that justification. Maybe I'm wrong and this is the legislative intent. States with 3 foot laws apparently have allowed passing in the same lane, but I'm not sure it's all that clear even in that case.

Maybe this strays to far into VC, and if it is I'll move it. My question is if it's illegal to pass a car in the same lane, which it is

I'm ignorant of this law. Please enlighten me?

In NY, this is all I can find:


NY VAY Title 7 Article 25

§ 1120. Drive on right side of roadway; exceptions. (a) Upon all
roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right
half of the roadway, except as follows:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction under the rules governing such movement;
2. When overtaking or passing bicyclists, pedestrians, animals or
obstructions on the right half of the roadway;


...

§ 1122. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules shall
govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same
direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules
hereinafter stated:
(a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in
the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and
shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely
clear of the overtaken vehicle.
(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the
driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of
the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the
speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

I don't see anything making it illegal to pass a car in the same lane - if there were a lane wide enough.

I'm not aware of a law that says that a car can't pass another car in the same lane. However, physical limits tend to come into play for most lanes, making it impossible to do. In places where it is physically possible, I often see it when one car is preparing to make a right turn but otherwise, not so much.

Unless a vehicle is stopped for some reason, I won't pass them in the same lane. Because, Just as I 'take the lane' to avoid 'drifters' from the right, I won't pass them on the left, either.

Eh, 3 foot laws would indicate that it's legal to pass halfway in the same lane, depending where the bike is. Because of where I ride, I'm often ridiculously far into the lane (the lane is as wide as a car plus a few inches, I'm riding in the middle. That 3 inch shoulder is not a bike lane), so I force drivers to change lanes anyway. MANY don't bother, and nearly knock me off--hence why I'm in the middle of the lane: plenty of room to swerve out of the way.

Yesterday in rainy conditions I had a driver move into the lane of opposing traffic as I came to a stop sign, then I turned in front of him (I verified where he was via mirror, and started to turn anyway). I had to bail on the turn--instead of stopping, he was planning on running the stop sign while passing me illegally in the lane of opposing traffic through an intersection while passing a park about a block and a half away from a middle school on a school day in a calmed residential zone. That's like half a dozen infractions right there.

Fortunately I had also accounted for him running the sign when I checked his position in the mirror, and had started a staged turn (i.e. a partial turn that I could complete or bail on quickly). I was fully prepared to bail on the turn and did so with a comfortable error margin.

I always turn left there. There's always a driver behind me and I use that stretch of (barrier-separated) sidewalk to reach the bike path 100 feet away. It's easier to negotiate the turn there than up ahead (because of the 4 way stop, versus just a clear, narrow road with no sidewalk on the right and a blind curve I have to turn across), and it gets me out of the road so I'm not annoying traffic unnecessarily. There's a series of intersections in a short distance, and that area has high contention; even if I'm going to bike in the road, I mainly bypass it to avoid creating a worse traffic situation by adding a slow-moving vehicle.

So, no, it's not likely legal to pass in the same lane unless the same lane is wide enough for 3 feet of passing clearance. But really who cares? Drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, they all follow the rules as they see fit and convenient. You should have a mirror and keep enough clearance on your right to swerve out of the way of way-too-close passing cars, just like you need to be aware of traffic behind and in front of you so you can swerve around absolutely brain damaged pedestrians wandering into the street on a cell phone looking--get this--in the direction of travel of the lane of traffic they're entering (i.e. away from you). I've almost destroyed a few people like that, just walked out in front of me from around giant SUVs, they just appear from nowhere.

Sometimes, the motorist really doesn't see the cyclist. Sometimes, the cyclist doesn't see the pedestrian. And sometimes, the range of fault is so wide spread and littered with so many failures and completely idiotic infractions that none of the people involved should be let out of their house ever again. Court will now hear the case of Smith v. Jones, driver too busy fishing around in his back seat while talking on his cell phone to see the cyclist that came riding 15mph wrong way left sidewalk and did a sharp turn wrong way into the road from behind a big truck head on into traffic.

The law is meaningless. It is a vessel for punishing people and maybe removing them from the system after they do some damage. It prevents nothing, it only eliminates repetition.

Eh, 3 foot laws would indicate that it's legal to pass halfway in the same lane, depending where the bike is.

<snip wall of words>

I believe the OP is about passing in the same lane...obviously if one is over the line they are not completely in the same lane.

I don't see anything making it illegal to pass a car in the same lane - if there were a lane wide enough.that may be the key. I'm thinking you would be cited by a LEO every time though.

.....I had to bail on the turn--instead of stopping, he was planning on running the stop sign while passing me illegally in the lane of opposing traffic through an intersection while passing a park about a block and a half away from a middle school on a school day in a calmed residential zone.......

Slightly off-topic, but this is exactly why I often won't turn left on a bicycle in traffic. Instead I proceed across the intersection and then stop on the far side and reorient my bike to cross with the cars on the following light.

All you have to experience is one car passing you sideways in the opposing traffic lane (on his way all the way around) as the driver realizes that you were turning left, and that he is about to slide backward back into your (his?) lane ahead of you, and off the road into a pole. "Cars don't kill cyclists, drivers do...", whether their actions are legal or not.

I have found that drivers will attempt to pass you in their lane, in your lane, or in the opposite lane, regardless of what is "legal". That is why I always get a kick out of threads that start out "Is it really legal to....".

I have a specific legal question, where is the actual legal justification for passing another vehicle in the same lane. I don't really consider the FRAP clause to imply that justification. Maybe I'm wrong and this is the legislative intent. States with 3 foot laws apparently have allowed passing in the same lane, but I'm not sure it's all that clear even in that case.It is a good question, but one that I believe has a very muddy answer. Most of the passing laws were originally written when roadways were not even painted. Thus the somewhat obscured wording of right side and left side of the roadway rahter than talking about specific operation in separate lanes. Case laws have muddied the water even more, and now we have 3 foot laws for cyclist making it even less clear with the express implication that sharing a lane is OK.

The only laws that I am aware of making lane position clear, are a couple of motorcycle laws that expressly allow one motorcycle to pass another in the same lane if it can be safely performed. There may be companion laws making it clear the non-motorcycle motorist must not pass a motorcycle in the same lane.

Clearly current case passing laws consider passing another motorist (should apply to passing cyclist as well) in the same lane as an "unsafe passing" infraction with little other clarification.

Like I said, muddy.

Hope someone comes up with a crystal clear state law for not lane sharing.

In California, two vehicles are allowed to occupy the same lane provided it is safe to do so. Cali is also one of the few places that has traffic laws that are intentionally open to interpretation, and being "safe" is definitely one. SO, if an officer sees someone pass a bike in a way that endangers the cyclist, they would have the grounds to write a ticket. If no one was endangered, then they would not. The officer would also have to decide if the cyclist also contributed or caused the unsafe condition. Judges have long proven that they are willing to hear arguments about "safe" here too.

This is also why lane-splitting is legal for motorcycles on the freeways here. And it's why it's legal for you us to pull our bicycles alongside other cars in a left-turn lane-the safest spot for us to be is actually alongside the other car, not between their bumpers.

This entire system may have flaws, but it has been proven over many decades. It requires that both vehicle operators exercise good judgement. Obviously, if you are at greater exposure to injury (say, on a bike rather than in a car), you adjust your personal definition of "safe" too.

I have a specific legal question, where is the actual legal justification for passing another vehicle in the same lane. I don't really consider the FRAP clause to imply that justification. Maybe I'm wrong and this is the legislative intent. States with 3 foot laws apparently have allowed passing in the same lane, but I'm not sure it's all that clear even in that case.

Our system of laws in the US does not generally state what one may do; they state what one shall or shall not do, and anything not in conflict with these laws is allowed.

Sometimes a law mandating or prohibiting something is equiped with an exception stating when one is not required to comply, i.e. when one may do something in conflict with it. But it is the general restriction that warrants the specific exception language. Were it not for the restriction, the exception would not need to be stated.

For instance, in states with a law that requires bicyclists to stay to the right within a marked travel lane, an exception may be provided saying when cyclists may use the full lane. In states without such a laws, the cyclist is not required to stay right within the marked lane. I once had a police officer challenge me to say where in the NC code it said a cyclist could ride in the center of the lane. I told him to find the place where it said I couldn't. Of course, he failed to do so, which is the point.

Different states have different restrictions on how not passing on the right, not straddling lane lines, not passing too closely, etc. so in some states it may not be possible to pass within the same lane under certain circumstances where it would be legal in other states.

Recently one of our formerly one-way-two-lane city streets was converted to two-way-two-lane. The local residents thought it would do some traffic calming. Now there is not enough room for a car and bike in one lane, so if a car wants to pass me it has to cross a double-yellow line. I think this is always illegal for the car.

I think this is always illegal for the car.
My thinking is that this is legal. AFAIK a car does not have to wait for a passing zone to pass a slow moving vehicle.

Recently one of our formerly one-way-two-lane city streets was converted to two-way-two-lane. The local residents thought it would do some traffic calming. Now there is not enough room for a car and bike in one lane, so if a car wants to pass me it has to cross a double-yellow line. I think this is always illegal for the car.
In many states, there's no exception in the double yellow rule for passing a bicyclist, so it is indeed illegal for cars to pass. The vast majority of my riding is done on narrow rural roads with one lane in each direction, so cars are technically required to follow me until one of us turns off (potentially 10-15 miles) if they follow that law.

Granted I believe PA is an exception since double yellows are advisory here.

The law is meaningless. It is a vessel for punishing people and maybe removing them from the system after they do some damage. It prevents nothing, it only eliminates repetition.

+1!!

My thinking is that this is legal. AFAIK a car does not have to wait for a passing zone to pass a slow moving vehicle.

As with most traffic codes, that varies by state, but you're right in many if not most states, there are multiple exceptions for crossing a double-yellow line.

For example, in Washington State, no-passing zone markings are established here:

RCW 46.61.130

No-passing zones.


(1) The state department of transportation and the local authorities are authorized to determine those portions of any highway under their respective jurisdictions where overtaking and passing or driving to the left of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may by appropriate signs or markings on the roadway indicate the beginning and end of such zones. When such signs or markings are in place and clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person every driver of a vehicle shall obey the directions thereof.

(2) Where signs or markings are in place to define a no-passing zone as set forth in subsection (1) of this section, no driver may at any time drive on the left side of the roadway within the no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark the no-passing zone throughout its length.

(3) This section does not apply under the conditions described in RCW 46.61.100 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.100)(1)(b), nor to the driver of a vehicle turning left into or from an alley, private road, or driveway.




Note (3) -- you have to go look at 46.61.100(1)(b) to see what the exceptions are to what would otherwise be an almost absolute prohibition.


Those exceptions are



(b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;


So you can cross the double-yellow if there's an obstruction, but there's no definition here of what constitutes an obstruction.

Passing laws generally say the overtaking vehicle must pass the slower vehicle "to the left thereof at a safe distance", but don't actually specify a different lane. (As always, there are state variations.)

"a safe distance" isn't defined in many states; in other states, there's a specific 3-foot minimum for passing bicycles. In Washington, we have "to the left at a safe distance to clearly avoid coming into contact with the pedestrian or bicyclist" but without the 3-foot measurement.

If you have a lane wide enough to pass another car safely, you can do so. (Seattle often doesn't stripe two lanes on roads wide enough to handle two lanes of traffic, they just stripe the center line. If cars are parked, drivers form one line left; if cars aren't parked, drivers form two lines even though there isn't a separately-striped lane. Seattle PD says that's correct, as long as there's room to pass the other cars at a safe distance.)

Yellow lines separate vehicle traffic lanes moving in opposite directions. They include:
 Broken yellow lines: A single broken yellow line usually marks the centerline of a two-way roadway where a vehicle may pass if it is safe.
 Solid yellow lines: If a solid yellow line is on your side of the centerline of a roadway, do not cross over it to pass. On a four-lane divided roadway or a one-way road, a solid yellow line usually marks the left edge of the pavement. A double solid yellow line down the middle of a two-lane roadway means that passing is not allowed for vehicles traveling in either direction.
 Center lane, left-turn-only: Many roads have a left-turn only lane to help traffic flow more smoothly. Each outside edge of this lane is marked with a solid yellow line with broken yellow lines on the inside edges. Left turns must be made from within this lane, and may be made from either direction. Using this lane to pass other vehicles or as a merge lane is both dangerous and illegal.

www.Michigan.gov/sos (http://www.Michigan.gov/sos)

Also see: http://www.m-bike.org/blog/laws/


But even if you are legally riding two abreast and a line of traffic forms behind you could still be cited for impeading traffic.
That is, if you haven't been run off or run over.

does anyone care enforcement wise? (no)

is there anything to be done about it short of improved passing laws?

And, is this a theoretical question? Because in Pennsylvania vehicles CAN pass within the same lane and to the right pursuant to PA state traffic law.

so it's legal for bicyclists to pass cars to the right, and bikes can either ride on the road or the shoulder to do so in pennsylvania.

I wouldnt worry about it.

I live in Texas and it is usually quite safe to pass in the same lane. What often happens, however, is that motorists will give far more room to the cyclist and pass by driving far into the oncoming lane on a two lane road. While I appreciate the extra room, I have seen this almost cause head on collisions in cases where cars are backed up and a 2nd or 3rd car makes the pass in the same process and gets too close to an oncoming car (the first car making the pass had plenty of time, but the cars behind it didn't and might not have realized an oncoming car was approaching until they got out there). On one relatively busy road I have seen this a few times and stopped riding there because I didn't want to be the source of an accident, even though it wouldn't be my fault.

Hi, I am in Austin also. Just wondering, is what you describe at the north end of Emerald Forest or where it turns into Vinson?

Don in Austin

But even if you are legally riding two abreast and a line of traffic forms behind you could still be cited for impeading traffic.
That is, if you haven't been run off or run over.
Not properly cited. Case law from Georgia and Ohio cases state that if a vehicle (such as farm equipment, bicycle, etc.) are moving at a speed reasonable for that vehicle, they are NOT impeding traffic. They would have to comply with slow moving vehicle laws that require them to turn out when safe to do so if x number of faster vehicles back up behind them.

Hi, I am in Austin also. Just wondering, is what you describe at the north end of Emerald Forest or where it turns into Vinson?

Don in Austin
Hi Don, the particular road I'm talking about is the eastern portion of Hamilton Pool road for about 4 or 5 miles before it ends at highway 71 near the town of Bee Cave. I have also seen the same behavior quite a bit in other places - cars passing far into the other lane - but not in a way that they routinely put themselves at risk. I'm not sure of the areas you are describing.

But even if you are legally riding two abreast and a line of traffic forms behind you could still be cited for impeading traffic.
That is, if you haven't been run off or run over.

An "impeding" charge is unlikely to stick in many states -- in Washington, for example, "impeding" is an offense defined only for motor vehicles, it simply doesn't apply to bicycles at all.

In other states, while it's written to apply to all vehicles, it requires that the operator be intentionally driving slower than safe operation of the vehicle would allow. If you're driving your tractor between fields at 25mph because at 26mph it becomes dangerously hard to control, you aren't "impeding" no matter how many cars line up behind you.

You might, on the other hand, be guilty of failing to pull off to the right and allow faster-moving traffic to pass, if you're in a situation where that law applies -- only one lane each direction, passing unsafe due to oncoming traffic or road conditions, usually five or more delayed vehicles, and you have an opportunity to safely pull off the road. In terms of bicycles, that would mean a lane narrower than 14 feet (the typical minimum width for a car to safely pass a bicycle within the lane) with a clean, hard shoulder at least 4 feet wide (typically the minimum width for a safe bicycle facility per AASHTO standards).

In Georgia the 3' law applies to accidents. However, I was making a left turn and a guy nearly took my hand off by speeding up and passing me. Too bad for him the cop behind him saw it and promptlypulled him over. I don't know if he got a ticket or not, but he did get pulled over in Suwanee Ga. They are beginning to take cycling laws very seriously because of the greenway MUP just down the street from where I work.

I also spoke with a local cop friend of mine who says that the violation needs to be witnessed/cited by a police officer. That way it stands a better chance in court. Of course, most people will pay these simple fines without going through the trouble of appearing and disputing it in court. I think the fine for violating the 3ft law is $99 in my county. (which is also taking this law very seriously)

My cop friend also said that even with the scofflaw cyclists who on occasion will also be ticketed for traffic violations...are the least of the problem. He said most of the incidents he has been involved with have been where people in cars have hit cyclists, because they are either impatient, or ignorant to the newer laws that are on the books now. He also warned me that road rage against cyclists is on the rise. People just don't like us impeding their efforts to drive recklessly to work...I'm quoting him on that.

We have been friends for a long time. John said that he wouldn't ride a bike on our streets. (that's just his opinion though...he see's too many drunk and reckless people on the roads...)

It is not legal in AZ (and likely some other other US states) to deprive a motorcycle the full use of a lane (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00903.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS). So the AZ law does provide clarity for one type of narrow vehicle.

You know, I don't really mind people passing me at all. As long as they do it safely enough to keep from hitting me. Such as not passing me on a narrow hill, or a blind curve.

And of course the lady who actually tried to pass me while I was making a legal right hand turn. I was taking the lane to be safe, signaled etc. And she actually tried to pass me while I was making the turn. I couldn't believe the audacity of this lady. I bet it took me less than 30 seconds to reach her at the light. Why oh why do people get in such a hurry over nothing, I'll never understand. When I drive my car...I get there when I get there. When I'm on my bike, I ride as fast and as hard as I feel like...

Not properly cited. Case law from Georgia and Ohio cases state that if a vehicle (such as farm equipment, bicycle, etc.) are moving at a speed reasonable for that vehicle, they are NOT impeding traffic. They would have to comply with slow moving vehicle laws that require them to turn out when safe to do so if x number of faster vehicles back up behind them.

Yes and no.
257.660 Bicycles…; operation on roadway; use of bicycle path; passing; operation of bicycle or moped on sidewalk… (http://michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-257-660)Sec. 660.
(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 or street with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except for the purpose of crossing that highway or street. The state transportation department may prohibit the operation of a low-speed vehicle on any highway or street under its jurisdiction if it determines that the prohibition is necessary in the interest of public safety

257.660a Operation of bicycle upon highway or street; riding close to right-hand curb or edge of roadway; exceptions. (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-660a)A person operating a bicycle upon a highway or street at less than the existing speed of traffic shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except as follows:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to turn left.
(c) When conditions make the right-hand edge of the roadway unsafe or reasonably unusable by bicycles, including, but not limited to, surface hazards, an uneven roadway surface, drain openings, debris, parked or moving vehicles or bicycles, pedestrians, animals, or other obstacles, or if the lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle.
(d) When operating a bicycle in a lane in which the traffic is turning right but the individual intends to go straight through the intersection.
(e) When operating a bicycle upon a 1-way highway or street that has 2 or more marked traffic lanes, in which case the individual may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

257.660b Operation of bicycle upon highway or street; riding more than 2 abreast. (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-660b)Two or more individuals operating bicycles upon a highway or street shall not ride more than 2 abreast except upon a path or portion of the highway or street set aside for the use of bicycles.

The following is from MLive.com

{definition of “impeding traffic.” (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28bg5y4orer4trpn45etvo4445%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-676b)


MORE TRAFFIC TALK:

Traffic Talk: Are bicycles allowed on sidewalks? Can drivers honk out of frustration? (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/traffic_talk_are_bicycles_allo.html)
What are the rules for bicycles on the road? (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/traffic_talk_what_are_the_rule_2.html)
What do all those flashing yellow and red lights mean on school buses? (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/traffic_talk_what_do_all_those.html)
To see all related stories click here (http://topics.mlive.com/tag/Grand%20Rapids%20Traffic/index.html).






Mlive user amlive (http://connect.mlive.com/user/amlive/index.html) said if bicyclists are following the rules, then no matter if cars are backed up behind them, they are not impeding traffic. If they are intentionally riding down the middle of the lane or being oblivious to cars backed up when they can ride safely to the right, that would be impeding.
But prankstur (http://connect.mlive.com/user/prankstur/index.html) disagreed, using a dictionary definition of impede, the user said this: “If the speed limit is 35 and the biker is slowing traffic to 10 or 15 then YES they are IMPEDING TRAFFIC, PERIOD.”
Mlive user grreader (http://connect.mlive.com/user/grreader/index.html) weighed in, too:

“How can a bicyclists impede traffic when they are traffic?... It's clear the law is to prevent people from intentionally blocking traffic and is not intended for normal operation of a bike. If it were, then by default ALL bikes would not be allowed on the road and that's clearly not the case.”
Here's what Church had to say in that first Traffic Talk column on bikes (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/traffic_talk_what_are_the_rule_2.html):

"It is actually against the law to impede or interfere with the flow of traffic. So if bicycles are causing a traffic backup, they are actually violating the law."
Because of all the comments, I got Noles' take on it, too.
“If (the bicyclists) are as far to the right side as possible, then they're doing what they're supposed to be doing,” he said.
But if there is a long line of traffic building up?
“I would say they need to stop and let traffic go by them,” he said. “You'd get some bicyclists that might disagree with me, but impeding can be subject to interpretation.”**
end of m-live


Note: I didn't say convicted of, but cited for impeading.
The other catch-all is "interfere with moving traffic", different law than impeading.
I beleive most people could get get out of the ticket at court, but it's also dependent on what jurisdiction level you are at.
Counties, cities, townships and villages can and do make all kinds of exceptions to the state laws as allowed.
Michigan law(s) governing bicycles are vague on purpose, as most laws are.
You can have either(or both) a bicycle and/or a slow moving vehicle depending on what section you look at.
Even judges opinions vary from one district court to another.

A lik to a another discussion here on BF about MI bike laws. http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-212007.html

A nearby city started an aggressive revenue enhancement program this spring, and they are ticketing everbody they can find that is even a hair outside the written law.
Have not heard of any adult bicyclists being cited, but heard from several parents who were ticketed for their children not wearing helmets or operating an unsafe/improperly equipped bicycle(inoperable front hand brake and no reflectors on a bmx bike). The bmx kid's parents lost in court, and the CL seller of the bmx may also be fined, because he sold the bike without the reflectors.


Plus, the LEO involved may have some prejudices that will necessitate a court appearance or lawyer.

I've never talked about this with anybody but my brother;
I was beaned and knocked unconscience back in the eighties, on my still most used stretch of road, just around dusk. I can remember the sound of approaching tires and then nothing. I was riding FRAP, had an early blinky on my belt and a be seen headlight. I was targeted. When I woke, my bike was about 20-30 ft behind where I was lying, on the other side of the armco barrier. I limped and dragged my bike to a gas station to call the police.
When I called the PD about what had happened, they wanted me to come to the station to file a report, another 1 1/2 miles down the road. I then called my brother to come and take me to the hospital.
While waiting for my brother, an LEO did show up, I expained to him what I thought had happened, and his response was that it was probably all my fault, there weren't any witnesses, bicycles don't belong on that road, I should stay in my own city, I was wasting his time and he should probably cite me for leaving the scene of an accident, and he left.
This cop had all kinds of problems with pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and pickup truck drivers, I later found out, but because of this incident you will have to excuse me for riding defensively and not agreeing with some of you who honesly believe you have have the same vehicular rights as 1 1/2 ton car.

An "impeding" charge is unlikely to stick in many states -- in Washington, for example, "impeding" is an offense defined only for motor vehicles, it simply doesn't apply to bicycles at all.

There is some law that keeps bicyclists from impeding (holding up) traffic. Even in Washington.

The option available to cyclists to keep from impeding traffic is specified in the FRAP law. They are not required to speed up (since that is something that is "not in the nature of" bicycles).

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=455938&Depth=2&TD=WRAP&advquery=bicycle&depth=4&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={E98A**&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=0&y=0&zz=

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may travel no more than two abreast when traffic is not impeded, but otherwise shall ride in single file except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

There is some law that keeps bicyclists from impeding (holding up) traffic. Even in Washington.

Indeed, I included it just after the text you quoted:

You might, on the other hand, be guilty of failing to pull off to the right and allow faster-moving traffic to pass, if you're in a situation where that law applies -- only one lane each direction, passing unsafe due to oncoming traffic or road conditions, usually five or more delayed vehicles, and you have an opportunity to safely pull off the road. In terms of bicycles, that would mean a lane narrower than 14 feet (the typical minimum width for a car to safely pass a bicycle within the lane) with a clean, hard shoulder at least 4 feet wide (typically the minimum width for a safe bicycle facility per AASHTO standards).


The "slow-moving-vehicle" statute applies to all vehicles, including bicycles, while the "impeding" statute applies to only motor vehicles. The "slow-moving-vehicle" statute is also much more narrowly drafted.

* "Impeding" applies on any roadway, while "slow-moving-vehicle" applies only on sections of two-lane roads where passing is unsafe.

* "Impeding" applies if you're slowing down any traffic, "slow-moving-vehicle" applies only once five or more vehicles are delayed behind the slow-moving vehicle.

* "Impeding" applies immediately if you're interfering with traffic, "slow-moving-vehicle" applies only if there is safe room to pull off and you don't do so.

with a considerate duty of care exercised by all parties, these questions are moot.

can a car pass a bicyclist within the same lane?

absolutely!

is it really legal? well, it depends.