The Selz Case--a bicyclist "impeding" traffic

On July 16, 1999, Steven Selz was operating his bicycle along State Route 49 in Trotwood, Ohio, a five-lane roadway with a speed limit of 45 mph. He had stopped a light and was going uphill from the light when Trotwood Police Officer Vance, with lights and siren blaring, pulled him over. Officer Vance issued a citation to Mr. Selz for "impeding traffic" under a local Trotwood ordinance.

At the February 7, 2000 trial, Officer Vance testified that Mr. Selz "...was driving in the middle of the lane..." and was going "...no more than 15 miles per hour..." She further testified that "...cars had to stop and ... go over to the other lane to get around him..." . . . .

Officer Vance had some vague notion that Mr. Selz was somehow in danger because he was riding on State Route 49, a roadway that is, admittedly not for everyone. Officer Vance candidly testified as follows on cross-examination:

Q: I take it your opinion is that State Route 49 is simply a dangerous place for bicycles to be?
A: Honestly, yes.

It became clear as the trial progressed that the City of Trotwood was going to take the position that if you can't ride 45 mph then you can be charged with "impeding traffic." Further, the prosecution simply felt that it was "unsafe" to ride on this stretch of State Route 49 and, therefore, was trying to "protect" Mr. Selz from his own foolishness. . . .


On October 20, 2000, the Court of Appeals released its decision - a victory for Steven Selz. The court found a case in Georgia involving a slow moving farm combine. In that case, the Georgia court found that operator of a slow moving vehicle, which was traveling at or near its top speed, could not be convicted of "impeding traffic" under a similar law. The Court of Appeals compared the Georgia case to this one and stated:

In either case, 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.