Impeding traffic: what's the law got to do with it?

Are these cyclists impeding traffic?

Bob Mionske, JD has written a valuable guide to bicycling and the law entitled, ?natch, Bicycling and the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist
.
I?ve been reading it in short spurts and, given a lively debate that errupted over the July 4th holiday amongst a group of avid cyclists, I thought I?d excerpt some of what Mionske has written. Clearly, Mionske isn?t the final authority on the subject. Still, he impresses me as a good legal mind. A long time ago, friends who were in law school told me that the best attorney wasn?t just good at taking your side and defending you, they were good at the defense because they could figure out what the prosecution would argue. That?s Mionske: someone who clearly is on the side of cyclists, but who isn?t afraid to give cyclists the straight dope to help them make good decisions about their legal rights and responsibilities. It always helps to know what the other side thinks and how they might prosecute their case. [1]

The upshot of Mionske?s discussion is this: the law and precedent indicate that a bicycle rider, when traveling at the fastest speed it reasonably can, is not impeding traffic.

Here?s how Mionske builds the case. First, he quotes Uniform Vehicle code Section 11-805. Minimum Speed Regulation:

No person shall drive a vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or is in compliance with the law. (b) Whenever the (State highway commission) or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any highway or part of a highway impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the (commission) or such local authority may establish a minimum speed below which no person shall drive except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with the law, and that limit shall be effective when posted upon appropriate fixed or variable signs.

As Mionske points out, while law enforcement officers sometimes interpret the law to mean that bicycles a priori impede traffic simply because most cyclists ride slower than 25+ mph, this isn?t a reasonable interpretation of the law or its intent. To see why, we must take a look at two cases that have set precendent for interpreting the law.

Bicycling and the Law by Bob Mionske

The first is an Ohio case, Trotwood v Seltz, heard in 2000. Steven Selz was ticketed for impeding traffic after an officer observed Selz riding in the middle of the road, traveling no more than 15 mph. Cars had to move into the oncoming lane of traffic to get around him.

The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the officer was wrong to give Selz a ticket for impeding traffic. The Ohio Court based its decision on a Georgia case involving an accident between a car and a corn combine. In that case, the Georgia court ruled that the combine wasn?t impeding traffic since it was moving as fast as it reasonably could. The reason, the Court reasoned, was that it would unreasonable interpretation of the law and tantamount to saying that all farm equipment, dump trucks, street cleaners, snow plows, and other utility vehicles could not use the roads. Clearly, we?d have a problem with food supply and sanitation if this were the case.

In both cases, the Courts ruled that what the law spoke to was whether the vehicle in question was moving at a speed it was capable of. The law was written to speak to those vehicle drivers who were purposefully, negligently, or inattentively driving slower than they were capable of.

Thus, with the caveat that this is the Ohio Court?s interpretation of the law, Mionske concludes that this section of most states? Vehicle Code ?does not apply to vehicles ? including bicycles ? that are traveling as fast as they reasonably can, even if they are otherwise impeding traffic.? (Mionske, p 63) However, a cyclist who is traveling at the proper speed can still be cited for violating traffic law requiring that cyclists right as close to the right as practicable, which is what the Ohio Court said in their ruling: the officer would have done better to ticket Selz for not riding as far to the right as practicable.

So, there you have it. At least one attorney?s interpretation of the case law as applied to the provision against impeding traffic.

In a follow up post, I?m going to talk about what ?practicable? means. I learned some interesting things while taking League of American Bicyclist?s Traffic Skills 101 course with Bruce Drees and Tommy white. And Mionske has a great discussion in the book as well.

In the meantime, what do you think it means? Why would law makers choose the word practicable - instead of practical? If you know what practicable means, tell us how you practice safe bicycling when you follow this law?

---

[1] That said, of course, none of what?s written here or in Mionske?s book should be construed as legal advice. IANAL &etc. :)

[2] 46.2-877. Minimum speed limits.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede thenormal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed isnecessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

[3] In the Selz case in Ohio, moreover, the Court did say that Selz could have been charged with not riding as far to the right as practicable.

[4] As I noted above, the Virginia ordinance specifies motor vehicles in its minimum speed law, so it?s ultimately a moot question. That doesn?t mean you won?t get stopped or ticketed for impeding traffic. Officers aren?t always fullyl aprised of the law; after all there are a LOT of laws to uphold, eh?

Plus, as we know, in discussion fora, both non-cyclists and cyclists can be misinformed about the law. Once people learn that traffic law applies to cyclists, they often don?t realize that there are some portions of the traffic code that speak only to drivers of motorized vehicles. What people often don?t understand is that in Virginia and some other states, traffic code that specifies motor vehicles does so for a reason, as Mionske points out in Bicycling and the Law

Source: http://www.bikenorfolk.org/2011/07/impeding-traffic-whats-the-law-got-to-do-with-it/

colorado rockies walgreens brave alexander skarsgard asteroid virgin america dodgers