Got pulled over yesterday....

[Volant]

for riding two-up. On a long flat stretch of country road at 7 am with not a car in sight. Cop stated we were "breaking the law." Although, when the tail guys yelled "car-back" we got into a single file (still pulled us over :rolleyes: ). One of the guys in our group is an attorney so he looked it up after the ride -- couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean an ordinance doesn't exist. Just funny how Barney wanted to bust a bunch of middle-aged guys' chops out getting some exercise on a Saturday morning. Nothing better to do, I guess.

[Ken Robb]

In CA. I think a citation has to be just that: the law/ordinance that has been violated has to be written (cited) on the ticket.

[CNY rider]

Was the cop parked somewhere along the road, or did he come up from behind you on patrol?

[DfCas]

In West Virginia, riding 2 side by side is legal. In the effective cycling class I took I seem to remember them saying that there was evidence that riding side by side was thought to be safer. Much more visible to drivers, and it discouraged cars passing with oncoming traffic, squeezing out a single cyclist. Passing 2 riders side by side means they must get in the oncoming lane more, investing themselves in a head-on.

[dekindy]

You would not call him Barney if he was risking his life to protect the public or giving CPR to a cyclist that had been run over by a car, would you?

My buddies had a similar instance happen to them except one of them was actually carrying a copy of Indiana law with them and was able to talk intelligently about the situation. Why don't you find out the right answer and show the appropriate indignation when you are certain of the facts.

[oldguy00]

Did you actually get a ticket?
I believe it is in fact illegal here in Canada, not positive. My understanding is that you can only be 'two up' if one rider is in the process of passing the other...
Most cops I know would not give a ticket for it, they'd likely just pull up next to you and ask you to ride single file.

[pjm]

You would not call him Barney if he was risking his life to protect the public or giving CPR to a cyclist that had been run over by a car, would you?

My buddies had a similar instance happen to them except one of them was actually carrying a copy of Indiana law with them and was able to talk intelligently about the situation. Why don't you find out the right answer and show the appropriate indignation when you are certain of the facts.
Jerks can be heroes, too.

[Mr. Squirrel]

just when i was ready to pounce. :crap:

mr. squirrel

[rugbysecondrow]

I have gotten a ticket driving my car on an open road, with no traffic and clear line of sight...the rule (if there is one) applies when there is and isn't traffic. It does seem like a dumb rule though and it might be mis-interpreted.

[gemship]

I have gotten a ticket driving my car on an open road, with no traffic and clear line of sight...the rule (if there is one) applies when there is and isn't traffic. It does seem like a dumb rule though and it might be mis-interpreted.


I always thought in a instance like you describe they are just looking to generate revenue and or justify their existence.

[gemship]

You would not call him Barney if he was risking his life to protect the public or giving CPR to a cyclist that had been run over by a car, would you?


Barney is a new on me. Is that a short name for Barney Fife? I always call refer to them as the popo or pigs.

Youtube link, Barney Fife and the preamble to the Constitution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuPQgV8yBM

[Nil Else]

The local sign/ordinance created after many complaints:

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/400/bikesignsinglefilersz.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/i/bikesignsinglefilersz.jpg/)

Related article(s): http://www.vbhcomm.info/news/hot_Bicycle_Ordinance.php

I ride and drive in the area so I'm sympathetic to the both sides. This area is beautiful area that is known to the cycling communities as one of the great place to ride and they flock here. Inevitably there is a crash of sorts between resident/drivers and cyclists. I can attest to getting finger flipped at while driving, at least a few times, by 3-4 abreast groups (often ladies! having serious chatting session) just for following them well behind looking for a chance to pass so I can imagine the anger from non-cycling residents. Mind you this is 'up there' wealthy town that used to actually put up road construction detour barricades for decades without actually having any work done to keep non-resident thru-traffic out of their 'peaceful tranquil' roads... which is the precise reason why this area has been home to the haves. In fact the anger toward cyclists from any drivers driving on these roads are pretty consistent. I do my part trying to be a good ambassador of the share-the-road cycling community but it doesn't make it easy when I'm in the car with them and have one of those encounters.

[drewski]

for riding two-up. On a long flat stretch of country road at 7 am with not a car in sight. Cop stated we were "breaking the law." Although, when the tail guys yelled "car-back" we got into a single file (still pulled us over :rolleyes: ). One of the guys in our group is an attorney so he looked it up after the ride -- couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean an ordinance doesn't exist. Just funny how Barney wanted to bust a bunch of middle-aged guys' chops out getting some exercise on a Saturday morning. Nothing better to do, I guess.

Here in Charlotte, NC there is a great deal of chatter about riding
in a dual formation vs single file. I think for visibility purposes riding dual
is almost a necessity. A bill is being proposed to make riding single file a law if there is car traffic around. To me this is just wrong headed.

[Volant]

You would not call him Barney if he was risking his life to protect the public or giving CPR to a cyclist that had been run over by a car, would you?

My buddies had a similar instance happen to them except one of them was actually carrying a copy of Indiana law with them and was able to talk intelligently about the situation. Why don't you find out the right answer and show the appropriate indignation when you are certain of the facts.

Sorry; Officer Bernard (real name). But, yes, I (our group as well) was making light of the situation by the reference to Barney Fife.

[Birddog]

A bill is being proposed to make riding single file a law if there is car traffic around. To me this is just wrong headed.
Most states allow 2 up riding unless designated otherwise. There is no question in my mind that it is safer for cyclists. As others have mentioned, motorists have to make a decision that could negatively impact them as they have to cross the center line as opposed to squeezing the cyclists off the road if they are single file. As a motorist, would you rather go around 20 people doubled up or 20 people strung out? Which is safer for both?

[Volant]

Just got a phone call. Tennessee Code Title 55-8-175 states that bicyclists shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
So, two-up is okay. But, learned something new and I'll place a copy of the actual code in my saddle bag.

[thwart]

Here it's OK to be 2 abreast if not impeding traffic.

Out for a Sunday ride yesterday with a buddy on a lightly traveled county highway (55 mph speed limit). Did the single file thing when a car approached from the rear. Two bikers were about a quarter mile ahead and remained 2 abreast (and at least 4-5 feet apart) when same car approached them. Car's brake lights go on. Since it was approaching a corner, it stayed behind them for a few hundred feet until there was a decent line of sight.

We passed the couple shortly thereafter and were surprised to see one of the riders looked like someone who puts on lots and lots of fast miles... out riding with a woman friend.

Yep---he was the one out in the lane holding up traffic. :rolleyes:

[BumbleBeeDave]

Just got a phone call. Tennessee Code Title 55-8-175 states that bicyclists shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
So, two-up is okay. But, learned something new and I'll place a copy of the actual code in my saddle bag.

. . . since there was no traffic to impede, you were legally in the right to be riding two abreast. But did the officer actually issue a citation?

Carrying a copy of the state's traffic laws for bicycles sounds like a pretty good idea.

BBD

[dekindy]

http://www.bikeleague.org/action/bikelaws/state_laws.php

Source for state bicycle laws.

[jlwdm]

Just remember that you cannot always rely on state law. Watch out for county and city ordinances also.

Jeff

[tch]

http://www.bikeleague.org/action/bikelaws/state_laws.php

Source for state bicycle laws.
Thank you; great source.

[Volant]

BTW, since a couple folks asked, the officer did not issue a citation; just a warning.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Just remember that you cannot always rely on state law. Watch out for county and city ordinances also.

Jeff

State law automatically trumps any county or local ordinance. But you still have to go to court to point that out to them and that costs $$.

BBD

[jlwdm]

State law automatically trumps any county or local ordinance. But you still have to go to court to point that out to them and that costs $$.

BBD


Do not kid yourself.

Jeff

[Peter P.]

Just got a phone call. Tennessee Code Title 55-8-175 states that bicyclists shall not ride more than two abreast, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
So, two-up is okay. But, learned something new and I'll place a copy of the actual code in my saddle bag.

I think you're only reading what you want to read.

As I read it, it's NOT okay.

"Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic..." The officer may argue your riding two abreast WAS impeding traffic. You would have to argue otherwise.

"...and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane." This means, if there was a painted centerline, you can't ride abreast.

I recommend you get a copy of Bob Mionske's superb reference, "Bicyclists and the Law".

Unfortunately, the laws are usually written to close loopholes, and are in favor of the law enforcers. Only a good argument or a lawyer can get you out of trouble, and that costs money.

[Wilkinson4]

I got one about 20 years ago. Country road, alone, 7am in the middle of nowhere. Cali stop through a stop sign (I am a real stickler for traffic law and I slowed to almost a track stand here) and the po-po pulled me over.

Gave me a ticket. ***?

mIKE

[MarcusPless]

Carrying a copy of the state's traffic laws for bicycles sounds like a pretty good idea.

Some San Diego Bike Commuters carry a snippet of the CA Vehicle Code on their person, usually to educate motorists. AFAIK their attempts to "educate" the local PD has fallen on deaf ears. Not to mention the local "courts" ears. A recent case involved a cyclist where the "court" didn't really agree with the CA vehicle code issue, but they (ultimately) did rule in his favor based on some other mickey mouse interpretation of the vehicle code.

"Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir" is (apparently) the only acceptable response.

But what do I know. The local PD where I live (92116, at the time), forced me to sue them when one of their 20+ year veterans put me through his windshield... The PD investigation took total responsibility, and yet, we still had to go to court... The "offical" PD investigation took total responsibility, and yet, I received the official "we'll see you in court" as my apology...

Arguing with cops is a serious waste of time. "Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" are the only acceptable answers. Google recent cyclists (with some sort of video camera) that have been dragged into court if interested. Admittedly, one of the recent examples was a motorcyclist (who was no-doubt speeding), but none-the-less, I gotta say, a plain-clothes cop hopping out of an unmarked car, branishing a weapon, without (immediately) announcing "I'm a COP!!!", (and "flashing a badge")... I'd be tempted to grab a handful of distance...

Cops aren't always right.. Gang-banger/Cop-impersonaters, less so...

YMMV

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . to have "traffic." According to the OP there were no cars on the road except, presumably, the cop. Is one car "traffic?" Interesting question . . . But as no ticket was issued, only a warning, I guess it's moot. Smile, say "Yes, Sir!" and ride single file until the officer is gone. He obviously needed to do something to justify his existence and harassing the OP and his friends was it on this particular day.

BBD


I think you're only reading what you want to read.

As I read it, it's NOT okay.

"Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic..." The officer may argue your riding two abreast WAS impeding traffic. You would have to argue otherwise.

"...and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane." This means, if there was a painted centerline, you can't ride abreast.

I recommend you get a copy of Bob Mionske's superb reference, "Bicyclists and the Law".

Unfortunately, the laws are usually written to close loopholes, and are in favor of the law enforcers. Only a good argument or a lawyer can get you out of trouble, and that costs money.

[tch]

I think you're only reading what you want to read.

As I read it, it's NOT okay.

"Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic..." The officer may argue your riding two abreast WAS impeding traffic. You would have to argue otherwise.

"...and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane." This means, if there was a painted centerline, you can't ride abreast.
.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm married to one, know the mindset, and am an English teacher. I read that "on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane" as meaning all bicyclists need to stay within in the lane and not cross the centerline. If it meant you had to ride 1-1, it would say "shall ride in a single file".

That said, compliance until it's impossible and then very polite insistence on one's rights usually wins the day.

[rwsaunders]

Time to wear the Universal Vehicle Code on your sleeve...

http://www.elevengear.us/trafficmaster.html

[AC0]

You have to have cars on the road. . . to have "traffic." According to the OP there were no cars on the road except, presumably, the cop. Is one car "traffic?" Interesting question . . .
BBD

Bikes are vehicles, so they are part of the traffic.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/06/news/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske-two-by-two_78929
http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/04/news/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske-to-impede-or-not-to-impede-that-is-the-question_9772


AC

[jlwdm]

I hate all of these legal questions on the forum because the answers are not as clear as people usually think they are. Many states have similar laws in some areas - you need to look at your state laws and your local laws. New York for example allows certain bicycle laws to be changed locally - including the state requirement that every bicycle have a bell or other warning device. This is from a quick look, not a thorough research of NY State laws.

Since there has been a discussion of the Tennessee statute I will comment on this section in a vacuum. Again there could be other sections that relate to this same subject. My comments are in parenthesis and bold.

55-8-175. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths — Penalty. —
(a) (1) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:
(so keep to the right unless you are keeping up with traffic)

(A) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(self explanatory)

(B) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(self explanatory)

(C) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(so you can move left to avoid conditions; on a narrow lane you are allowed to move left so that you do not get pinched at the edge of the road. On the other hand if there is no median and no traffic the vehicle traveling in your direction would have room to pass and it is safer staying to the right leaving more room for the passing vehicle)

(2) This subsection (a) does not apply to a certified police cyclist engaged in the lawful performance of duty relating to traffic control. (ignore this)

(b) (1) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two (2) abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
(can’t ride more than two abreast unless on bike paths, which could be part of roadway)

(persons riding two abreast can’t impede traffic; so go in a single line to the right if going slower than traffic)

(on a laned roadway; can be one lane in each direction with a center line; shall ride within a single lane; so if you are riding two abreast you both need to stay in your lane)


Jeff

[Volant]

Thanks for the details, Jeff. The problem with where we're at is that the roads are extremely narrow with NO shoulder to speak of. The stripe on the side of the road IS the end of the road and it usually drops off a few feet from there as soon as you cross that stripe. Some roads are only 8' to 10' per lane with a lot of single-lane bridges. You couple that with the new 3-feet law (overtaking vehicles must yield 3 feet to cyclists - came about because too many cyclists getting hit from behind and killed) and it means overtaking vehicles have to move into oncoming traffic even for single-file riders that are over as far as they can get. During heavy traffic, this can cause quite a back-up because vehicles just can't get around and the cyclist(s) just can't get over far enough for a safe, and now legal, pass. It's created some animosity toward cyclists and the county we rode into is seeking to ban cyclists from certain roads (to help with traffic issues). Perhaps this officer was sensitive to the issue or has had an ear-ful about cyclists on the motorists' roads. I know our group has heard enough, 'Get off the road!" from angry motorists over the years - even when riding single file ON that stripe.

[Marcusaurelius]

Did you actually get a ticket?
I believe it is in fact illegal here in Canada, not positive. My understanding is that you can only be 'two up' if one rider is in the process of passing the other...
Most cops I know would not give a ticket for it, they'd likely just pull up next to you and ask you to ride single file.

Not sure where you live but here you can rider side by side on the shoulder but not on the highway. I have never seen a cyclist be given a ticket even for riding on the sidewalk or running a red light (both illegal).

[retrogrouchy]

The local sign/ordinance created after many complaints:

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/400/bikesignsinglefilersz.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/i/bikesignsinglefilersz.jpg/)

Related article(s): http://www.vbhcomm.info/news/hot_Bicycle_Ordinance.php

I ride and drive in the area so I'm sympathetic to the both sides. This area is beautiful area that is known to the cycling communities as one of the great place to ride and they flock here. Inevitably there is a crash of sorts between resident/drivers and cyclists. I can attest to getting finger flipped at while driving, at least a few times, by 3-4 abreast groups (often ladies! having serious chatting session) just for following them well behind looking for a chance to pass so I can imagine the anger from non-cycling residents. Mind you this is 'up there' wealthy town that used to actually put up road construction detour barricades for decades without actually having any work done to keep non-resident thru-traffic out of their 'peaceful tranquil' roads... which is the precise reason why this area has been home to the haves. In fact the anger toward cyclists from any drivers driving on these roads are pretty consistent. I do my part trying to be a good ambassador of the share-the-road cycling community but it doesn't make it easy when I'm in the car with them and have one of those encounters.

That's the land o' FIBs, though, to those from Wisconsin, so not surprising....

:D

[Volant]

That's the land o' FIBs, though, to those from Wisconsin, so not surprising....

:D

What's a FIB?

BTW, I grew up near Barrington Hills and I'm not surprised. (I was on the have-nots side of the street, however.)

[Louis]

Persons riding two (2) abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.

A few random comments:

Assuming we are not talking about an entire peleton, but a small group of say five riders where you never go more than two wide, I think it comes down to what "impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" is. To be honest, on the narrow twisty roads with no shoulders around here, even one cyclist causes cars to have to slow down (unless the driver is the "pass anywhere, even on a blind turn" type). If one were to use the "no impeding normal traffic" as a guideline then all bikes plus old folks who drive 10 mph below the limit would all be banned.

In my experience if they can't pass in a straight section many drivers are willing to slow down and stay back for 15 seconds or so. However, a significant minority will pass right away under nearly any circumstances (curvy hilly road with absolutely no visibility? - no problem, they own the road). Those are the folks (along with the texters and cell-phone talkers who never even see you) who in my opinion are the most dangerous. If it turns out that someone is coming around the bend you can be sure that they'll move right over and put you in the ditch.

[jlwdm]

Louis:

Keep it simple. There might be other laws covering impeding traffic, but in this bicycle section the impeding traffic section only covers riding two abreast. It does not cover a single line of riders.

Impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic means that if you are going under the speed limit and you have a car or cars behind you on a winding road where a driver can't see far enough down the road to pass without going in the other lane you need to ride single file. On a narrow road there still might not be room to pass, but in Tennessee riders will be legal. On the other hand if it is a straight stretch with no traffic coming from the opposite direction and thus room to pass you can still ride two abreast.

I hate the drivers who have plenty of room to pass and just stay right behind me.

Jeff

[HenryA]

The "impeding traffic" part does not mean you can't be on the road. It does mean that you should use common sense and not block other users - no more, no less. In Tennessee a bicycle is "traffic" or a "vehicle" just as much as a car or truck. You can't lawfully ride your bike against traffic or on a sidewalk. That you are allowed to ride two abreast in one lane recognizes the physical difference that bikes are much narrower than cars.

Where lots of drivers (and riders) go wrong is thinking that they can drive any way and at whatever speed (up to the limit) they want. Every driver is responsible for maintaining control of their vehicle at all times. If there is a condition that calls for slowing or stopping it is the driver's responsibility to do so. That condition could be potholes, construction, a narrow bridge or traffic lane, a fallen tree, a tractor with hay wagon, a pedestrian or a bike. Bottom line is no one can lawfully operate a vehicle on public roads with disregard for other users and road conditions. Just because the sign says "50" does not mean you are supposed to drive that fast. And just because its "your lane" does not mean you get to run over anything in your way.

"Impeding traffic" on a bike could be analogous to driving your car straddling two lanes of the road. Put two bikes riding abreast in one lane of a narrow roadway and it becomes impossible for another driver to pass while observing the 3 foot law, just as that driver can't pass a car straddling lanes - there is no room to do so. Just because its "your lane" does not mean you should ride in a fashion that keeps other vehicles from passing.

Think for a few moments about "your lane" and what that really means. Is it really yours?

The answer for cyclists is to be aware at all times of your position on the road and stay out of the way as much as you can while using the roadway. You have a right to be there and so do the other drivers. Neither party's rights will overcome physics. A cyclist is much smaller than a car or truck. It is in your best interest to stay far away from a physical encounter with a vehicle that might be 20 or 50 times your weight.

If you find yourself on a narrow roadway and a car appears behind you, think about waving them around if its safe. Waving might let them know that you are aware they are behind you. One of the big questions other drivers have in this situation is "does that guy know I'm about to pass him or will he swerve into my path?" This creates tension for the driver because he may be afraid that he will be part of an accident with you. When you supply them with some information of your intention some of the tension will be relieved, and he'll likely pass in a safe manner.

[redir]

A few random comments:

Assuming we are not talking about an entire peleton, but a small group of say five riders where you never go more than two wide, I think it comes down to what "impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" is. To be honest, on the narrow twisty roads with no shoulders around here, even one cyclist causes cars to have to slow down (unless the driver is the "pass anywhere, even on a blind turn" type). If one were to use the "no impeding normal traffic" as a guideline then all bikes plus old folks who drive 10 mph below the limit would all be banned.

In my experience if they can't pass in a straight section many drivers are willing to slow down and stay back for 15 seconds or so. However, a significant minority will pass right away under nearly any circumstances (curvy hilly road with absolutely no visibility? - no problem, they own the road). Those are the folks (along with the texters and cell-phone talkers who never even see you) who in my opinion are the most dangerous. If it turns out that someone is coming around the bend you can be sure that they'll move right over and put you in the ditch.

Reminds me of a time when this guy passed me on a 100% blind corner of a busy country road and sure enough another car was coming right down the lane. The guy squeezed over and the woman approaching slammed on her brakes and slid into a driveway. Fortunately there was the drive way. The guy of course kept right on going and the woman pulled out of the drive way rolled down her window and flipped me off yelling obscenities :crap: :crap: :crap:

[bob the nailer]

The sign says single file only. So the double yellow line down the middle says don't cross this line to pass. It doesn't say don't cross this line to pass unless you are passing a biker on a blind hill or blind curve. You are much safer riding double, so they can't pass you unless it is really clear. Not necessarily legally safer but from a health standpoint. Sometimes civil disobedience is your best bet.

[retrogrouchy]

What's a FIB?

BTW, I grew up near Barrington Hills and I'm not surprised. (I was on the have-nots side of the street, however.)

Well, the "I" stands for Illinois. When I went to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and came there from Illinois, I discovered the term 'FIB.'