Riding Bicycles on the Road is Not a Crime

[XLFD]

Many people around this time of year start getting perturbed by bicyclists on the road.  Around the rural character of Mason County and its neighboring counties, their are a lot of paved roads without shoulders, and much fewer that have an actual bike lane.  So it's perhaps understandable that when traffic starts piling up behind a cyclist on a busy road, that the cyclist is somehow obstructing traffic.  Such a perception may be enhanced when you see a cyclist claiming more of the lane than he should.  But are such things actually impeding or obstructing traffic in Michigan?

 

Let's start off by saying that bicycles by law have every right to the road, and have the same duties, as other vehicles do (MCL 257.657).  That doesn't necessarily say they must act the same way, as different rules apply to them in situations.  In a nutshell, this means that cyclists on the road should use the roadway as a means of getting from A to B, and not as a place to play around on.  Weaving around may sometimes be necessary to avoid road hazards, but the closer you can ride in a straight line towards the right side of the lane, the better for all. 

 

There are several reasons that motorists get disturbed by bicyclists unfairly.  They may feel they have no business being in the road when a shoulder or bike lane is provided, but that is not the case, the cyclist is under no compulsion to use these.  Even though it may be safer at times, often these ways are less maintained, have other hazards within like drainage and chatter-bumps, or have the cyclist forced too close to parked cars or the road edge. 

 

Motorists sometimes complain that bike riders are not far enough over to the right side of the lane.  There are several reasons for not being on the far right side of the lane as a cyclist.  These are listed in the state law (MCL 257.660a) and include (c):  When conditions make the right-hand edge of the roadway unsafe or reasonably unusable by bicycles, including, but not limited to, surface hazards, an uneven roadway surface, drain openings, debris, parked or moving vehicles or bicycles, pedestrians, animals, or other obstacles, or if the lane is too narrow to permit a vehicle to safely overtake and pass a bicycle (like in this case).  If a bicyclist is hit from behind while they were riding in the right lane, it should be assumed in most cases that the passing vehicle did not give proper room for passing.

 

But it often isn't, and the vehicle-friendly partisans of police forces and the press often overlook the rights of the bicyclists.  As a case in point, there is the recent story of the League of Michigan Bicyclist's (LMB) member John Lindenmayer.  In disclosure, I disagree with the LMB on several topics and feel they do not represent sane policy for the most part, but they do get it right sometimes.

 

John was riding home one Friday evening around 6:30 PM heading east in the far right lane (one of five) down Michigan Avenue for several blocks, when he heard a honk followed by a siren behind him.  He pulled over to the roadside when he saw the flashing lights were for him. 

 

The Lansing Police Officer told him:  "The roadways are made for motor vehicles, and you can ride your bike on it, but you're impeding traffic."  When John civilly told him that he was riding his bike lawfully, the officer retorted:  "we can handle this a different way."   Backup was called and three additional units arrived on scene, completely blocking the eastbound travel lane.  He was ultimately given a ticket for violation of MCL257.676b:  "  A person, without authority, shall not block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway in this state, by means of a barricade, object, or device, or with his or her person."

 

He fought the ticket as a matter of principle, and because it was the right thing to do, requesting an informal hearing in front of the magistrate.  At the hearing, the officer indicated that he thought John was riding too far from the curb and was backing up traffic for blocks.  John argued he had the right to the road and explained that he was riding predictably and in a straight line in order to avoid hazards such as getting "doored" by car doors opening into the travel lane from parallel parked cars, and to avoid the crumbling edge of the road (as explained in the first two laws presented here).  He also pointed out that since he was an active member of 'traffic' (MCL 257.69) he could not be found to be obstructing it.  He lost.

 

Still not happy with the result, and more determined than ever, John lawyered up and asked for a formal hearing in front of a judge.  The attorney he hired sent a FOIA to get all of the data concerning this traffic stop, and received some interesting data.  The dashcam video of the policeman showed him riding well within the law, and showed a police car ahead of his that turned off slightly before the traffic stop was made, making one wonder why they did not stop the bicyclist themselves.  It also recorded the radio traffic of the policeman:  

 

" He's got long hair. He's riding his bike in the right-hand lane down Michigan Avenue . . . He's got traffic backed up. I wondered what was going on, so I get in the left-hand lane and I go up, and people are beeping at this idiot. He is not pulling over or anything else, so I pull him over. He's like, 'What are you pulling me over for? What's your badge number?' I said, 'You know, the roadways are made for motor vehicles, and you can ride your bike on it, but you're impeding traffic . . .'

This is all - this is all f***** up. He's riding his f*** bike in the right-hand lane down Michigan Avenue at 11 miles an hour. He's got f****** traffic backed up for three . . . three blocks. So, I pull him over. People are beeping at him. He's not pulling over . . . He's like, 'F*** it. I've got a right to be on the roadway . . .' He goes, 'Act so and so and this and this here . . . you can't stop me. It's against my rights.' I said, 'Look here. You're impeding traffic. You can't . . . You can't drive down the street at a couple of miles an hour and hold-up traffic. What if there are two bikes? You can stop both lanes going eastbound on Michigan?'"

 

 

It went to court, and after hearing all the testimony and weighing all the factors, Judge Hugh B. Clark Jr., found in favor of the cyclist, citing MCL 257.676b, which prevents people from interfering with the normal flow of traffic, did not apply to bicyclists (otherwise using the road lawfully).  Although this will not set precedent as it was just a district traffic court it is significant to show how it might play if it was appealed to higher levels.  The Judge also commented:

. . . I frequently will change lanes if there's a bicyclist. Simply because I don't want to hit the person or have them get hit. Or I'm anticipating they may move over or I may, as they use the term, "pinch" them . . . I err on caution at times and just change over lanes because I don't want to be in a situation.