Last Tuesday, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made a ruling that affects anyone who ever rides a bike on the road — or gets stuck behind one.
The case involved a man who was pedaling his bike on a busy, two-lane 45-55 mph road in Butler County. Think Route 611 north of Doylestown, Route 413 in Buckingham or Newtown, Business 202 near Chalfont, or any of the other zillion similar stretches of highway in the mid-to-outer Philly burbs.
He was going about ordinary bicycle speeds – between 10 and 20 mph. A state trooper got stuck behind him for less than two minutes and pulled him over, saying he was “impeding traffic.” Linton was charged and convicted under a law that says cyclists have to “make reasonable efforts” not to hold up other vehicles. His crime – essentially – was not getting off the roadway so motorists could pass him.
He appealed—and the state’s highest court agreed with him.
Here’s what the Court said, in plain English:
Punchline: The Law Isn’t About Getting Cyclists Out of Your Way
The law at issue—75 Pa. C.S. § 3364(b)(2) of the Vehicle Code—isn’t a green light for drivers or police to expect cyclists to dunk into the shoulder every time a car comes up behind them. The Court made it clear: yes, cyclists have to try not to hold up traffic, and sometimes that can mean leaving the roadway. But it’s a case-by-case basis.
In the Court’s own language those case-by-case decisions are based on:
… the type of road and number of lanes in each direction; any posted speed minimums or maximums; any posted signage concerning use of the berm or shoulder; the location of the pedalcycle on the roadway; the physical conditions of the roadway; the physical conditions of the berm or shoulder, including whether there are any obstructions thereon; the weather; the time of day; the approximate number of vehicles that have been impeded by the pedalcycle; the average speed of the pedalcycle and the traffic in both directions; the frequency of oncoming traffic; the number of vehicles able to safely pass the pedalcycle; and the average length of time a vehicle is behind the pedalcycle before it is able to safely pass.
That means a person on a bike isn’t totally in the clear from having to leave the road. But “you’re slow and I’m not” is not enough.
So What Does This Mean for You?
If You’re a Cyclist:
- You’re allowed to use the road. This decision was largely a win for you.
- You should let cars pass when it’s safe to do so—but you don’t have to get off the road, ride into a ditch, or put yourself at risk just to make a driver happy. It has to be safe and it should be necessary to cure a fairly substantial backup.
- Use common sense. Let cars pass when it’s safe, but don’t let anyone bully you into doing something dangerous.
If You’re a Driver:
- Sharing the road isn’t optional—it’s the law.
- Getting stuck behind a cyclist for a minute or two isn’t a crime. Losing your patience and trying to force them off the road might be.
- If a cyclist is holding up traffic but has no safe place to move over, tough luck. They’re not breaking the law if they’re acting reasonably.
⚖️ Bottom Line
This ruling doesn’t say cyclists can do whatever they want. It says they’re allowed to put safety first. That’s it.
For those of us traveling by car, this decision is a good place to take stock. Bikes are slow. It’s annoying. But they have almost the same right to be here as we do. Pass them when you can, but do not expect them to part ways for you like the red sea. It’s not our right.
And to the bicyclists out there, I envy how healthy your commute is. And I have enough memories of flat bike tires from all the detritus in a typical road shoulder not to expect you to take one for the team just so I can return to going 50 mph. But if the shoulder is clear, the traffic is backing up, and there is just no place to pass, maybe scoot over for a minute for us lazy folks?
Thanks!
No responses yet