While cyclists on Pennsylvania roads must make “reasonable efforts” to not impede the flow of traffic, the law does not mandate that they always and immediately pu
ll off the road to let faster traffic pass, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in a case of a bicyclist protesti
ng a $25 traffic ticket given him by a state trooper.
The law does require slow-going motor vehicles to pull off the road but whether cyclists should do so is a matter of the c
ircumstances including the road and shoulder conditions, traffic situation, posted speed limits, time of day and other factors.
In a 5-2 opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with th
e Commonwealth, which maintained that the General Assembly imposed on operators of peda
lcycles (as they are called in the law) a duty to always and immediately move off the roadway for faster moving traffic.
The high court concluded that the pedalcycle-specific provision of the minimum speed law generally perm
afe and reasonable speed appropriate for the pedalcycle” on any highway, regardless of speed limit. However, the provision also mandates that a pedalcycle operator
shall use “reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.”
Brendan Linton was riding his bicycle on Evans City Road in Butler Township. The stretch of roadway in quest
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
ion is a heavily trafficked highway with one westward and one eas
tward lane. The maximum speed limit varies from 45 miles per hour to 55 mph. There is no minimum speed limit posted.
When a state trooper on patrol, who was aware of complaints of slow moving pedalcycles in the area, pulled onto Evans City Road, there were at least 10 motor
vehicles between him and Linton. Within two and a half minutes, all of them successfully passed Linton or turned off th
e highway, leaving the officer directly behind Linton. The trooper attempted to pass him on the left as they approach
ed an intersection but did not complete the pass of Linton, who was ridi
ng at 12 mph in a 45 mph zone. Seconds later, he attempted to pass Linton a second time before again aborting due to o
ncoming traffic. Linton was traveling at 19 mph at that time, in a 55-mph zone.
The trooper then initiated a traffic stop. Linton was charged with violating the provision on slow speed impeding
of traffic and other counts related to providing identification. He proceeded to a summary bench trial.