A significant court ruling about the rights of bicyclists to ride on the road has been
handed down by an Ohio court.
The case involved two bicyclists who were riding abreast on a two-lane road.
A policeman was driving behind them, passed them, and observed that the bicyclists didn't single up even though there were two more cars behind them. The policeman stopped ahead and directed the bicyclists to stop, but they did not. The policeman then followed the bicyclists, turned on his lights and sirens. When the bicyclists still refused to pull over the policeman finally used his taser to stop the bicyclists.
The bicyclists were then charged with:
- Resisting arrest
- Disorderly conduct
- "Operating a bike in the roadway"
- Failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer
The judge ruled:
- The bicyclists may have been rude for riding two abreast but were breaking no law in Ohio--not the law requiring bicyclists to ride as far right as practicable (the lane was of non-sharable width), nor the law against impeding traffic, nor the law about riding abreast (which, in Ohio, does not require bicyclists to single up when impeding traffic)
- There is no law at all that bans "operating a bike in the roadway"
- Because the bicyclists were not breaking any law, the police officer had no basis to stop, detain, or arrest them and therefore all other charges were dismissed
The ruling is made more significant because (unlike most minor court rulings) this ruling has been published and so can be cited as a precedent in other cases.
Read the full ruling here.
Some notable excerpts:
- [R]easonable bicyclists monitor traffic situations and when there are motorists behind them, alert each other, usually by the verbal signal “car back,” which signals everyone to get in to a single file so that traffic can more easily pass. The defendant in this case is alleged not to have done that, and while that may practically be inconsiderate, rude, and possibly dangerous, the questions before the court is whether there was a legal requirement to do such and whether the officer had cause to stop and then finally to arrest the defendant under the circumstances presented in this case.
- In this case, the officer filed a citation against the defendant under R.C. 4511.55 and captioned it “Riding a bike in the Roadway.” It is not illegal in this state to operate a bicycle in the roadway so long as one complies with the requirements of the statute. There is no evidence or testimony from the officer that would prove a violation of this statute, as the bicyclists were riding two abreast, which is permitted by this statute.
- The fact that the defendant continued to ride two abreast even though there was traffic behind him is not a violation of the statute. There is no requirement in the statute that bicyclists go to single file in order to allow traffic to pass, even though that is the common and best practice of bicyclists in this area. [Note: Here Ohio law is different than Missouri law, which states, "Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles."]
- In this case, the officer’s testimony is that he felt that the defendant was
impeding traffic and that is why he asked him to pull over. It is clear to the court that a
bicyclist traveling at a reasonable speed for a bicycle cannot be convicted under R.C.
4511.22. There is no evidence that the defendant here was traveling at anything other
than a reasonable speed.
- [In order for a conviction for impeding traffic] there would have to be a showing in this court’s opinion that the cyclist was moving at a speed that was unreasonable for a bicycle in order for there to be a violation. This seems born out by the decision of the court in Trotwood v. Selz (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 947. In Trotwood, the court of appeals overturned the conviction of a defendant under this section because there was no evidence that he was proceeding at a speed that was unreasonable for a cyclist.
- [A]s minimally intrusive as it may seem to require the defendant to stop and talk
with the officer when requested, he had a fundamental right to be left alone under the
Fourth Amendment, and in this court’s opinion, was not required to stop.
- the court does not find that the officer’s request for the defendant to stop was a lawful order, because there is no indication that the defendant at that point had violated any statute.
This situation and the ruling bring up several important questions:
- What does this say about how bicyclists should handle traffic stops by police--especially those cases where the police officer is obviously in the wrong?
- Were the bicyclists right in not stopping in this situation? Is there any way they could have handled the situation better?
- What is the best way to deal with police officers who don't understand the traffic laws as they relate to bicyclists?
Feel free to give your answers to these questions--and others brought up by this case--in the comments section below . . .
- Related:
- News: St. Louis cyclists arrested by police on "bicycle license" pretext
- Tips&Stories: Riding abreast or in pacelines--the law
- News: Hwy 40 construction in St. Louis present challenges, opportunities for bicyclists
- News: Are bicyclist impeding traffic? Chesterfield Journal reply
- Newsletter: Kansas Sidepath law annulled: Schallenberger v. Rudd 244 Kan 230
I am a cyclist and live in Portland and even here many police officers still do not understand some of the traffic laws concerning bicycles. Whether the officer was correct in his reasoning for wanting them to pull over, the fact that they refused to stop on multiple attempts on the officer's part is.
For cycling to work and gain ground in areas where it is less visible the cyclists need to understand and comply with the laws, not attempting to be contrary or angsty if they encounter a lack of education.
The best thing they could have done is pull over immediately, politely try to discuss with the officer what law was broken, and if he still refused to understand the laws correctly, just take his name down and contact the police department. In no way is acting out against police officers over minor ignorance going to help the cycling situation in their area.
I mostly agree with the first reply above. I would have stopped. However, after thinking about this, what about civil disobedience? If police are free to hassle cyclists for no other reason than they feel like it, then this harassment can be an effective deterrent to continue riding on the roads.
If you know that you have not violated any laws, why should you feel compelled to stop?
Though I understand the huge difference, I would compare this to past civil rights actions. Police cannot detain someone due to their race. Yet, despite laws to the contrary, this type of harassment was (and still is) used as method to keep unwanted people away from certain areas.
Personally, I am tired of being obsequious to every moron behind the wheel of car who feels they have the right to make my life miserable for no other reason than I am on a bike.
Yet, cyclists are in an extremely vulnerable position and can exert little or no resistance to attacks by motorists.
So, if I was walking down the street and an police officer told me to stop and I replied that "Unless you are going to charge me with an offense, read me my rights and arrest me, I am under no obligation to be detained by you." He should let me go.
He may not like that reply, but there's nothing he can do. Those are my rights. And the same right applies when I am riding a bicycle.
This is an important ruling and sets precedent for future cases. I applaud the not-so-common common sense applied here.
Web link: http://carbonracing.org
Web link: http://isocrates.us/bike/
Web link: http://www.VeloNews.com
In our province - in this city - Victoria, BC - some years ago, a mother, towing a kiddie-trailer with child aboard, was ticketed for not riding as close as possible to the curb. Again, the courts threw out the ticket, and specifically directed the police that \
I certainly agree with this.
I'm of the mind that bicyclists should help motorists pass them safely when possible BUT this does not at all mean you should endanger yourself--for instance by cowering over against the curb--just so that cars can save a couple of seconds.
However, in general I would suggest that small groups of bicyclists single up when car(s) come up behind--not because it makes it much easier for them to pass (in most cases it doesn't!) but because it's a little gesture of cooperation.
Getting along in traffic--like many things in our society--is all about fostering a cooperation and little gestures like this go a long way towards that.
RIDING TWO ABREAST [§316.2065(6)]
Cyclists may ride two abreast only within a single lane and when not impeding traffic.
Cyclists may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
In a lane "too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side" (see "Position
on roadway" above), passing cyclists "at a safe distance" requires use of the next lane (see "Overtaking and passing a vehicle" above). In this case, cyclists riding two abreast cause no additional impediment
to traffic.
For the full context, see the web link below.
Web link: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/Bic ycle%20LEGuide-08.pdf
Our behavior on the road reflects on all cyclists. When we ride we have to be ambassadors to our sport and although the law of the land gives use the right to use the road, our behavior will determine if we will be welcomed doing it or not.
Glad to see this case being talked about. The road rage comment is a good one. This case is basically Road Rage with a Badge, squad car, baton, Taser and gun. I represent the rider in the civil rights case that is percolating through the federal courts right now. I'll be posting comments and blurbs about the case on my blog at www.OhioBikeLawyer.com.
There was a conflict among cyclists between what the rider SHOULD have done and what he was LEGALLY REQUIRED to do. Most agree - a cop says STOP and you stop - not because you are legally required to stop, but because a cop's job is hard enough without people running around willy-nilly disobeying their "orders," legal or not. However, there are times when cops get it wrong - when they hassle the innocent - when they become too big for their badge or think, or forget to think, about the law. Tony took the road of legal disobedience. This is not a road for the weak, timid or easily bruised. He's lucky he's alive and he's lucky the judge "got it right." He could have ended up severely injured with a felony record. I don't want to make too much of this case by likening it to the civil rights movement, but it's a similar mentality we're dealing with. Folks with badges and guns who don't know, or understand, or WANT to understand the law and who are hassling innocent and legitimate users of the public way. Tony took a chance that the legal system would "get it right" and, so far, it did...
Steve Magas
The Bike Lawyer
Bikelawyer@aol.com
Web link: http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com