Bicycle
PITTSBURGH - Cyclists don't always have to get off the road, even when they're blocking a long line of cars, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.
In a criminal case stemming from the the traffic stop of Brendan Linton, the court on June 17 made its decision on state law requiring cyclists to use "reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic."
At issue is whether the law requires cyclists to leave the roadway whenever faster moving traffic approaches. There is no black-and-white answer, the court ruled, after Linton said there was no situation in which it would be reasonable to expect cyclists to leave the road.
"(W)e conclude the statute instead calls for a fact-bound assessment of reasonableness, taking all relevant considerations into account, and that there may be factual circumstances under which a factfinder could properly determine the 'reasonable efforts' a pedalcycle operator must exert so as not to impede... traffic..." Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote.
The ruling reopens criminal proceedings against Linton, who was charged with disorderly conduct, violating the duties of an operator or pedestrian and the cycling-traffic law. He was found not guilty of the first two and guilty of the last in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.
The events took place July 31, 2021, when Linton was riding on Route 68 in Butler Township. The court notes it is a heavily trafficked highway with only one lane in each direction with speed limits between 45-55 mph.
The shoulder is wide enough for a motor vehicle, the ruling says, and bicycles are permitted on it. But there are also loose gravel, rumble strips, repaved potholes and sewer grates.
State Trooper Joshua Osche spotted Linton and knew of previous motorist complaints on the road about bicycles. He followed a line of traffic about 10 cars deep behind Linton, and all of them passed Linton within two minutes.
Osche followed him for 75 seconds before attempting to pass but couldn't, then waited another 45 seconds to try again before oncoming traffic prevented it. At this point, he pulled over Linton.
When asked for identification, Linton said he didn't have it. After Osche confirmed his identity, he told Linton a summons would be mailed to him.
"Keep 'em coming," said Linton, who argued the shoulder was "particularly hazardous" there.
Even after the trial court fight, Linton's penalty was only $25. But he chose to fight, even after the Superior Court affirmed the decision.
PennDOT's Bicycle Driver's Manual says cyclists "have a right" to ride on the roadway. Pennsylvania argued that "reasonable efforts" in the cycling-traffic law means that if a cyclist is impeding traffic, the only practical action would be to move off the roadway.
"To be sure... the statute does not expressly mandate pedalcyclists to exit the roadway," Dougherty wrote.
"But this makes perfect sense: given the typically smaller size of pedalcycles relative to other vehicles, it may be possible to safely pass a pedalcyclists that remains on the highway but simply moves to the far-right side of the lane."
Two justices dissented - Daniel McCaffery and David Wecht. McCaffery said the ruling fails to protect cyclists from criminal prosecution by failing to provide a safe harbor or easily understood rule.
"There is no 'in-between' option for operators," he wrote. "They either leave the roadway, yielding to other vehicles, or they risk being stopped by law enforcement and receiving a citation."
