chandltp

I've noticed that many (or is it most) states have clauses in their bike laws about not impeding traffic, but I don't know that I've ever seen a solid definition as to what constitutes impeding traffic.

Does anyone have a state law that defines what that is?

contango 

I'd be interested to see just how it's defined. When I see Amish buggies in PA that apparently aren't "impeding traffic" it's hard to see how a cyclist can be any more of an obstruction than a 1hp buggy.

CommuterRun

The 2011 Florida Statutes don't specifically define the term "impeding traffic". The only return for a search of the statutes for that specific term is Chapter 316.2065 Bicycle Regulations paragraph (6) which refers to bicyclists riding two abreast. However, Chapter 316.183 Unlawful Speed paragraph (5) defines impede as " ... block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, ... ".

bluegoatwoods

The wording is probably ambiguous on purpose. I suppose it means that bikes are welcome to use the lane when needed, but they'll hit you with a ticket if you are unreasonable about it.

Now imagine a cop who writes such a ticket to a reasonable rider simply because he has had a bad day and doesn't like bicyclists anyway. Hopefully the cyclist can get the judge to throw it out on the grounds that it was "reasonable use" as opposed to "impeding traffic".

Many of us have seen that recent video of the bus in London "sweeping" the bicyclist right off the road. When that bike tried to cut off the bus from passing, that might have been viewed as impeding traffic.

dynodonn 

That sounds like a cyclist almost needs an RSVP to take the lane, if that's the case, I must be a "party crasher".

SweetLou

In Ohio, the type of vehicle and the operator needs to be considered:
This was added in 2006, along with a lot of other bicycle laws. Even though this is not a bicycle specific law, it was introduced with the help of the Ohio Bicycle Federation. This clears up a lot of issues along with Trotwood v. Selz. A lot of states have "motor vehicle" in the definition of impeding traffic, so it doesn't apply to cyclist. So basically, if I am riding at a reasonable speed for me and my bike, I can't be impeding traffic. If my mother decided to hop on a bike, going 6 mph, she would not be impeding traffic, because that would be reasonable for her.

SPlKE 

Post minimum speed limits on roads, like they do on limited access highways.

If you can't keep up the minimum speed, get off the road.

Problem solved.

MMACH 5

I had an altercation with a motorist (shuttle driver) a few years ago and he called the police. The police showed up and he told them how I was impeding traffic (taking the right lane of a multi-lane road). Here's the interpretation of the responding officers: If there is a second lane for faster traffic to use, it is not possible for a bicycle to impede traffic.
I don't know how correct this is, but it's how it was explained to the shuttle driver.

dynodonn 

Problem not solved, the only way out of our city is by way of high speed highways, and even if they had minimum speed limits down to half their speed, it would eliminate just about all non motorized traffic.

Yo Spiff

SPlKE 

If a road user can't keep up a minimum speed, it's a safety issue for all other road users.

If everybody is allowed to take the lane and go as slow as they want, what's to stop the local unicycle enthusiast from taking the lane and puttering along at whatever reasonable speed one can go on a unicycle? Or a person in a wheelchair? Or a toddler on a riding toy?

Or is it that only bikers are allowed take the lane?

chandltp

This is the section in the current (the 4 foot law isn't active, but it's also pretty vague) PA bike laws:

(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.

Commodus

Cuz the word vehicle has a meaning! Yay for learning!

CommuterRun

That would only be reasonable if all maximum speed limits were reduced by 50%, and then make the minimum speed limit 50% of that.

No, it's only a safety issue for those who are dangerously incompetent in operating their chosen vehicle.

Key Words: Street Legal Vehicle. Not all vehicles are street legal. The speed a vehicle can reach is not the sole determining factor.

mconlonx

In ME, it's called "Obstructing Traffic" and is defined as any vehicle traveling at less than the posted speed with five or more vehicles behind them. Since a bicycle is considered a vehicle under ME state code, a cyclist could certainly be pulled over for obstructing traffic. However, new bike laws complicate matters a bit, since one part explicity states that a car may pass a cyclist legally even over a double-yellow line as long as they may do so safely (3' plus, no danger to oncoming traffic).

In that case, pretend you're riding, there's a car behind you who refuses to pass even when safe, four cars pile up behind that car. Is the cyclist obstructing traffic under state statute? I'd argue no, but it might not keep a cop from pulling you over only to have to settle the issue later in court. Same scenario, but six cars behind you -- is the first driver who refuses to pass now obstructing traffic?

Pretty much a non-issue since I've never seen or heard of local cops pulling anyone over under obstructing traffic statute.

SPlKE 

That makes no sense. What wheeled travel-device is not a vehicle?

SPlKE 

Key concept: it should be. If my bike is a Street Legal Vehicle, does that give me the right to go as slow as I want, wherever I want?

I ride 15 - 25 mph when in traffic on 25 - 35 mph roads. If I'm holding up traffic, I let it pass. & I don't have beefs with drivers.

The bikers I see having beefs with drivers are the slowpokes who putter along at 10 - 12 mph and appear to make a great show of taking the lane because it is their Right, with a capital R.

There are riders, and there are demonstrators -- riders who treat every ride like a critical mass demonstration against "cagers". I ride with some of these demonstrators on a regular basis. They're a pain in the butt because they go out of their way to antagonize drivers, to make some point, teach drivers a lesson, etc, etc.

CommuterRun

I already explained that to you.

CommuterRun

Okay, so you like riding around the block in your neighborhood. What can you do on 55 and 60 mph, two lane highways with substandard width lanes and no paved shoulders? Because if you can't ride under those conditions, you won't be riding around here. At least not riding anywhere to a specific destination.

crazy_lazy_bear

Part of my bicycle commute takes me by a complex for the elderly and disabled. The sidewalks are so bad, I see people in motorized wheelchairs in the road all the time.

contango 

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Just out of interest, is the comment your comment or a clarification comment within the law itself?

unterhausen

the state dot had an annotated copy of the law prior to the recent changes

Digital_Cowboy

And the thing that is important to cyclists is that 316.183 specifies MOTOR vehicle, not just vehicles.

Digital_Cowboy

Actually, all we have to do is to also look at the Trotwood v Selz case. As in that case Mr. Selz was riding in a safe, legal manner at a reasonable speed for his mode of transportation and was sadly still issued a ticket for impeding traffic by a LEO who thought that she knew better, and thought that it was too "dangerous" for a bicycle to be on that road at that time. Equally sad is that the judge who first heard the case sided with the officer and upheld the ticket.

He appealed the ticket and won on appeal. Which sadly, a short time later (I'm not sure how much time had passed) another Ohio officer not only ticketed two cyclists but had also assaulted the adult as well as leaving their bikes there at the scene.

CommuterRun

Yes. You are right, of course. And I did consider highlighting that, but it's so obvious I saw no reason to do that.