wphamilton

That's why I said that everything about this is weird and that there would be something more to it. From the videos and what's reported, his cycling was legal and even reasonable. It's easy to imagine that Smith has been harassed by motorists and law enforcement and treated unjustly by the courts, but in all likelihood there is more to the story. We've seen it several times where the cyclist was technically right initially but ran afoul of the law and courts when he or she escalated the situation. Maybe that happened here (maybe not) but we can't really come to any hard conclusions without knowing all of the facts about it. IMO.

Maelochs

Sorry but At No Time is an irrational viewpoint the Right viewpoint, and people claiming the right to act crazy are still crazy. "Pro--cyclist at any cost" is as unjust and unfair as any other extremist, one-sided position, and responding with extremism and deliberate injustice has never yet solved any problem.

Look at Kenya or Nigeria, or any other of those African countries where different tribes fight for power---every time one tribe gains government control, they eleva6e tribal members and deliberately disenfranchise and persecute the other tribe ... which lasts until the next change of power, when the perpetuated unfairness reverses.

It doesn't work there and it won't work here. The cure for injustice is Justice, not Worse Injustice.

People who cannot see that are not fit to call themselves adults and are a detriment to the human race---In my Opinion.

And if you had bothered to Read the Tread, and Do the research ... yeah, I suppose you support him going into a public office and threatening the staff with violence, because, after all, he is a cyclist, right? Nothing wrong with threatening some lady who works for the town, if you ride down there on a bike and then tell her you will bash her head in with a rock. it is only a crime if you drive to the office and threaten staff with a rock, right?

CB HI

Only one video shows the cyclist riding slower than a normal speed for a cyclist on that grade of road with this cyclist ability. That is the only traffic violation he may have committed based on any of the videos.

The claim seems to be he is mentally ill. If so, the claims that he has endangered himself and others, allows police to take him into a 72 hour mental illness evaluation. The claims that he is doing it only to get injured for some big payout, if they had substantiation rather than subjection adds to cause for a forced evaluation.

All that indicates that handing the situation through the courts is nothing but persecution and in no way to help a suspected mentally ill individual. The judge ordering someone she believes is mentally ill to obtain an evaluation on their own is just plain odd and improper. Few to none mentally ill people would follow that order.

In any case the court order to not ride on county roads is a violation of the mans constitutional rights and again, the wrong way to handle a mental illness.

The fact that the police, DA and judge believe he is mentally ill, makes them the criminals by unduly persecuting the man using the justice system rather than putting him under medical care.

And look at so many false claims that he is breaking the law from both the justice system and some here. No video shows him riding in the middle of the road, he does legally ride in the middle of the lane on roads with one lane in each direction. The claim that he was riding without his hands on the handle bar, and some intentionally misreading the law that deals with carrying bags/items.

JoeyBike

As I have said a million times regarding interactions with traffic on public roadways: "Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD" - Me

CB HI

From the same guy that use to tell us how it was just fine for him to constantly run red lights (not even under the Idaho Stop guidelines) and ride in the oncoming lane in heavy traffic.

JoeyBike

I was never "in the way" from a motorist's viewpoint. This is the #1 sin for cyclists. SLOWING down motorists. Find a video clip of me slowing down a motorist. Find a video of me taking a lane at less than the speed limit. You can't. It never happens. I am POLITE in my lawlessness, not ENTITLED.

noglider 

You guys have cultural differences that argument will not dissolve. Neither culture is superior, but you may feel the other is wrong if you don't understand where the other comes from.

GamblerGORD53

I rode 3,900 miles on a NW tour this summer. The only times I was in the lane, I was going car speed like downhill on a curvy road. When I was leading a parade, it was because somebody just wouldn't pass me out of caution and the 3 foot rule likely. I had to stop three times and put my foot on the curb to wave traffic to pass me on the Astoria bridge mountain. On narrow mountain roads I was riding inches from the edge, 100%. NO VC stupidness at all. NO PROBLEMS or horn tooting at all. There were maybe 20 yahoos, often WOMEN, making obnoxious comments about my cycling, for no good reason. A bunch of times I was wondering why nobody would make a RT on red, not legal there I guess. Drivers just KNOW when they are being d*cked around.

WTF has bike CULTURE to do with anything??

StanSeven

noglider 

There is a culture in the east that says breaking the law is OK as long as you don't hurt or inconvenience anyone. Or as long as you don't inconvenience them too much. I notice that in western states, the minimum expectation is that people abide by the law completely. So westerners ask us easterners why jumping red lights is OK. You have to be here to understand us.

blue192

I seem to recall seeing this fellow in the news before and as I recall he was also confrontational to car drivers as well. Regardless if he got a court order banning him from certain streets he should abide by that order.

jon c. 

I would agree, but I don't think he has the legal representation he'd need to take the fight to that level. I have no great answer as to how a situation such as this could be resolved, but the manner in which they are going about it certainly seems wrong on several levels.

CB HI

Not certain streets; ALL COUNTY ROADS.

Rollfast

I understand the problem now.

It's not the Constitution, it's the Bill Of Rights.

And you cannot hinder others' rights to assert your own.

Rights are a balance.

Maelochs

Rollfast nails it. His “rights” were Forfeited, not ‘stolen,” because he abused the rights of others. Also … driving or riding a bike on a public road is Not a Constitutional right. It is controlled by the state for the benefit of All road users.

Smith showed an unwillingness to respect the rights and fair usages of other residents. He was penalized.

If the state forbids a drunk driver or a driver who has repeatedly driven an unregistered or uninsured vehicle, from using the public roads, everybody is pleased. I have never seen an outraged post here about how some guy who was awaiting trial for hitting a cyclist, was not allowed to drive, and that his “rights” were being stripped unfairly.

If cyclists want to ride on the road with motorized traffic, we have to accept the responsibilities which go along with that privilege. And we, as cyclists, should not tolerate bad behavior by Any road user, no matter what conveyance said user chooses.

If a guy drove a car down the road at 5-10 mph and took both hands off the wheel, said driver would be dealt with probably much as Smith has been treated.

Only people with ridiculous biases or psychological conditions meriting treatment. assume that anyone on a bike is a hero and everyone is else is a persecutor. Fact is, a jerk on a bike could be a jerk behind the wheel and vice versa. And a jerk on any conveyance is a jerk---it is not the car or the bike, but the actions of the operator that determines whether or not s/he is a good or bad person.

And as we all know, “far right as practicable” is Undefined. It is left undefined, or rather it is not precisely defined, to allow riders to use judgment without worrying that they might get ticketed.

There is no way the state could envision every possible scenario which might force a rider into the middle of the lane. However, the law does state clearly that unless some situation Forces the rider into the middle of the lane, the rider must keep right.

It is a judgment call every one of us make every time we ride in traffic. It is a legal lack of definition we rely on, because we cannot stop and measure every road’s width, and them measure the car behind, and add three feet, and determine if the car could pass safely. We don’t have to—we are legally allowed to make a judgment.

By the same token, a judge and a jury can make a judgment about when a rider is abusing that imprecise definition. In fact, it is incumbent upon a jury, guided by a judge, to make that judgment call when a case like this comes to trial. So anyone claiming “He never broke the law” is just claiming “The law applies only as I say it does,” which is patently absurd.

Sometimes judges and juries get it wrong. Sometimes cyclists who sit on juries get it wrong. But mostly, not.

The evidence of that is that so very few of us have ever been stopped, let alone ticketed or arrested, for riding in traffic. We know how to cooperate, and we manage quite well. We have no trouble applying the law, making the judgment, and operating safely while sharing the road with other vehicles of various types.

If the laws were written to hurt cyclists and the legal system designed to penalize cyclists, we’d all have run afoul of the law in our combined years of road cycling (I know several posters here who have more than my five decades of experience, and many more who have ridden ten or a hundred times the miles I have. That's a Lot of miles ... adn no arrests for blocking traffic.)

If the state wanted it, bicycles would simply be banned on roads used by motor vehicles. Such a law would Not be unconstitutional, and if challenged on the basis of depriving cyclists from using the roads they paid for, there would be precedents. Parents without children still pay for schools, because it is in everybody's best interest, in the community's best interest, for children to be educated. Further, cyclists are not prohibited from Driving on those roads---we Choose not to. Further, the precedent exists for preventing cyclists and even some motor vehicles from using certain roads---most states don't allow bikes or scooters with fewer than something like five brake horsepower onto highways, and also have a minimum speed on those roads. So that same principle Could be extended to all roads ... for the safety of the cyclists.

So, all this ill-informed chest-thumping about "They are taking my rights" is just ill-informed chest-thumping. By the way, Smith lost his driving (cycling) privileges for abusing those privileges .. and for Unsafe Operation. He was convicted of Careless Driving. The idea that a person convicted of careless driving cannot be banned from driving is absurd, as I noted above.

Just judging from the videos I have seen of Smith actually riding, I would have no trouble convicting him of deliberately blocking traffic. The one where he is weaving allover the far left side of the lane would be enough for me to yank him off the road---he was barely in control of his bicycle. I would do so not in spite of being a cyclist but Because I am a cyclist. Clowns like Smith make All of us unsafe.

Justice Potter Stewart (I think) said he couldn’t define pornography but he knew it when he saw it—and I think everyone knew what he meant. One can see an image or a film or video or piece of literature and feel its intent. We won’t always agree and we won’t always get it right … but in the vast majority of cases rational people will Not deny real evidence and argue their biases.

Notable exceptions occur when traditional privilege is threatened—which is why sex assault and racial bias cases often yield obviously unjust results (like the college athlete who ***** a girl and was granted probation because of his potential future as an athlete—or the numerous videotaped incidents of police killing unarmed and unresisting black men and getting acquitted.)

But most of the time, people will put aside personal bias and analyze the facts—and somehow here, all the people who Depend for Survival on traffic laws, who would be Most likely to defend a cyclist to preserve their own privileges and to protect their own safety—see that this man Smith is guilty.

That is just something honest people do—they base judgment on fact, not bias.

Paul Barnard

I find you to be one of the more thorough and thoughtful posters on the forum. This was another very good post. I think Smith is a self-centered jerk of the highest order. I indeed hold that bias. But even with that bias, I have questions about the charges. I'd like to discuss the highlights. I have read some dozen or so articles on Mr Smith. The only traffic offense I have seen mentioned is obstructing traffic. If there were any charges relative to lane positioning/frap, I didn't encounter them in my reading.

My belief based on reading PA bike law is that on the narrow road in this video https://triblive.com/local/westmorel...bicyclist-case he was in a legal lane position. Do you agree or disagree? Best I can tell he was charged with obstruction rather than lane position. Like the judge, I know obstruction when I see it. That video shows a bicyclist obstructing traffic. I know there's not a definitive answer to this question, but the one that remains in my head is at what point did his legal presence become obstructing? One car? How long would a single car have to be be stuck behind him for it to become obstruction? Obstruction is very vaguely defined by the law and leaves broad room for interpretation. I have mentioned this earlier. When a single vehicle gets behind me, I am looking for ways to help them get around me. Even with that mentality I have found myself on a narrow winding mountain road with a guard rail on the right and no way to safely get out of the way. That situation lasted two minutes perhaps. The cop managed to safely pass the entire line of cars, yet the person immediately behind the very slow moving rider couldn't find a way around. Most states allow crossing a double yellow to go around obstructions, mail delivery trucks etc. so I am pretty sure the bicyclist could have been legally passed. I have been several cars behind a motorist who refused to pass a slow moving vehicle despite the fact that it could be done safely and legally. In my mind that driver is as much of an obstruction as the slow moving vehicle.

That's the sort of stuff that bounces around in my head. It's easy to jump into one the two well defined camps in these kinds of threads. I read a law like this and as someone who does his best to cooperate with other road users, I still have questions enter my mind.

https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsyl...apter-33/3364/

In the above linked video, I would assert that normal and reasonable movement of traffic would include the first person behind the bicyclist going around the cyclist. Does the cyclist have a duty to get off the road or does the first driver have a duty to go around? I think most riders have encountered older drivers who simply would not pass them even in a passing zone with no oncoming traffic. Who has the duty in that case? So rather than jump into either the "he's a nut and a jerk" or the "he's a martyr" camp, I like to bs about the little gray area.

JoeyBike

Just last month I was driving a mini-van on vacation. It was a rental, which is relevant to the story.

I got "stuck" behind a cement mixer driving about 5mph UNDER the posted speed limit of 55 mph. The 2-lane highway was hilly, curvy, and somewhat busy for a rural road. Quickly cars started stacking up behind me as I was the first vehicle behind the mixer. I had no idea how "my" mini-van would perform during a pass, and I wasn't in any rush, so I just chilled behind the mixer. At one point a silver pickup truck passed us from about five cars back, passed ALL of us at one shot, so it was possible to pass no doubt. I just figured that a cement mixer would not be going very far and would soon turn off, which he did after about 10 minutes (which does seem like an awfully long time when you are actually there).

Yes, I am old. Yes, I begin my errands with plenty of time to spare. Was I OBLIGATED to pass the mixer? Not in my mind. Was he OBLIGATED to pull over and let twenty of us go by knowing he would only be a bother for a few minutes? I don't see it as an obligation for him/her either.

My 2 cents.

Paul Barnard

In similar circumstances, it could be argued under PA law that if it was safe and legal for you to pass, the law burdens you to do that or to pull over as soon as you safely can.

JoeyBike

Who determines this? They guy driving the turbo-charged pickup truck in a big rush to catch up to the next slowpoke? How much am I allowed to exceed the speed limit to make a "safe" pass? 100mph? 75? And what if someone pulls out of their driveway onto the highway while I am next to the cement mixer?

I left plenty enough space between me and the mixer for people behind me to leap-frog to the front. Only one guy willing to drive 80-90mph dared try. The highway shoulder is a "ghost-cross farm" thanks to people like that.

livedarklions

Based on what? I don't see anything in the statutes that would imply a duty to cross a center line so that people didn't have to drive 5 mph below the speed limit..

Maelochs

Common trick … start with flattery to defused tension before attacking the post,.

My understanding is that he obstructing traffic by taking the lane and not giving way …. And by deliberately trying to make it hard for cars to pass him, instead of giving cars a chance to pass.

There is no bright line. There is no “That is specifically obstruction, and That is not.” Intent can only be inferred, but that inference plays a role. But as to whether he observed FRAP … judgment call. But … there are many ways to obstruct traffic.

§ 3301. Driving on right side of roadway.
(a) General rule.--Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway except as follows:
(1) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction where permitted by the rules governing such movement.
(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the roadway, provided the driver yields the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway within such distance as to constitute a hazard.
(3) When and where official traffic-control devices are in place designating a lane or lanes to the left side of the center of the roadway for the movement indicated by the devices.
(4) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(5) When making a left turn as provided in sections 3322 (relating to vehicle turning left) and 3331 (relating to required position and method of turning).
(b) Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.

This is the general law, not specific to bicycles, but governing bicycles. It Specifically states “as close as practicable” with no further specifics. So, while debris or bad pavement might be a valid reason, under this portion of the statute, perceived ability of a car to pass safely is Not protected as a reason to take the lane.

§ 3303. Overtaking vehicle on the left.

(a) General rule.--The following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to the limitations, exceptions and special rules stated in this chapter:

(1) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance and shall stay to the left of the other vehicle until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

(2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall not increase the speed of the vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle and shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on suitable signal.

(3) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a pedalcycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the pedalcycle within not less than four feet at a careful and prudent reduced speed.

§ 3305. Limitations on overtaking on the left.

No vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center or marked center line of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. In every event the overtaking vehicle must return to an authorized lane of travel as soon as practicable and, in the event the passing movement involves the use of a lane authorized for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, before coming within 200 feet of any approaching vehicle.

Cross References. Section 3305 is referred to in sections 1535, 1603, 3307, 3326, 3327 of this title.

What I find significant here is that safety on Overtaking is the responsibility of the vehicle making the pass. The cyclist can determine whether it is safe to ride on the far right of the road based on Road Conditions … but as for vehicles overtaking it is incumbent upon the overtaking vehicle to pass safely---it is Not to be determined by the slower vehicle.

Also I see this which might be relevant—

§ 3307. No-passing zones.

(a) Establishment and marking.--The department and local authorities may determine those portions of any highway under their respective jurisdictions where overtaking and passing or driving on the left side of the roadway would be especially hazardous and shall by appropriate signs or markings on the roadway indicate the beginning and end of such zones and when the signs or markings are in place and clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person every driver of a vehicle shall obey the directions of the signs or markings. Signs shall be placed to indicate the beginning and end of each no-passing zone.

(b) Compliance by drivers.--Where signs and markings are in place to define a no-passing zone as set forth in subsection (a), no driver shall at any time drive on the left side of the roadway within the no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark a no-passing zone throughout its length.

(b.1) Overtaking pedalcycles.--It is permissible to pass a pedalcycle, if done in accordance with sections 3303(a)(3) (relating to overtaking vehicle on the left) and 3305 (relating to limitations on overtaking on the left).

2010 Pennsylvania Code Title 75 – VEHICLES Chapter 35 - Special Vehicles and Pedestrians
3505 - Riding on roadways and pedalcycle paths.

[1](a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), every person operating a pedalcycle upon a highway shall obey the applicable rules of the road as contained in this title.
(b) Operation on shoulder.--A pedalcycle may be operated on the shoulder of a highway and shall be operated in the same direction as required of vehicles operated on the roadway. All turns shall be made in accordance with section 3331 (relating to required position and method of turning).
(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.--A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of section 3301(b) (relating to driving on right side of roadway) unless it is unsafe to do so.

It seems clear that a cyclist cannot say. “It was, in my judgment, unsafe for anyone to pass so I did not allow anyone to pass me.” I see no legal provision for that determination.

As I read it, the Intent fo the law is clear---cyclists should keep right as much as possible and cars are permitted to pass bicycles to keep traffic moving even in areas where passing a car might be illegal. This says to me, the legislature Does Not Want bicyclists determining traffic speed.

And as you say …. There is no specified description for exactly when a cyclist (or driver) is obstructing traffic for a reason—such a description would be too legally limiting.

If a specified number of cars was the determinant, then how is a cyclist to know how many cars are following? If a cyclist let one car by and then pulled back into the left edge of the lane, would that not be obstructionist?

Intent can only be inferred, but it plays a function—just as Intent is often the difference between manslaughter and First-Degree or Second-Degree murder. Motive, planning, intent are Not definable because they vary by individual and by situation.

For which we should be exceedingly glad.

In that scenario (and anyone who rides a lot has probably been in a similar situation—I know I have) the very imprecision of the law is what saves you.

You have no idea if three or thirty-three cars are behind you. You only know that there is no safe place to pull over. If there was some specific definition---say, seven or more cars—would you consider yourself to be a criminal, in that situation? How would you know if it was seven? The last four in the line wouldn’t be able to see you, because they’d be around a corner. And what could you do anyway?

On another hand, if it is only One car, but I ride deliberately to impede that car’s progress … I am obstructing traffic, and am a criminal.

I take the lane for what I consider to be reasons of personal safety—I do it frequently. When I Know a car cannot safely pass—narrow roads with tight corners and small hills, hills, etc. which are things I encounter a Lot on most of my preferred routes— I will take the lane, just like you. And like you, I let the cars by as soon as it is safe.

If I held up just One car, on purpose, by squeezing him over or even by just riding erratically, then I would be obstructing traffic.

There simply cannot be a narrowly defined rule in this case. And you know … the only people who Need a narrowly defined rule are criminals and the lawyers trying to let them get away with crimes.

For most people, “Don’t rob, ****, or kill, and don’t be a dick” is all the law that is needed, and even that is mostly not needed.

A narrowly defined rule will only lead to more safe cyclists getting arrested as drivers with dash cams say “Look, there were seven cars in line and the law says six” when you are saying, “The shoulder is all mud and holes and I don’t see any safe place to pull over where I wouldn’t be legitimately afraid of crashing and falling into traffic. (been there.)

Yes, we have all been followed by that person who wouldn’t pass when it was safe … in our estimation.

But who makes that call? The person overtaking has the responsibility to do it safely.

If the trailing driver doubts that s/he has the skill or car control to pass safely … then what? I would asy a driver Generally has the responsibility to advance past a bicycle when it is safe … but the Driver must make that call.

This is another situation where laws are left loosely defined so they can be adapted to different situations.

You say you like the gray, but you keep asking for black and white. We are better off when there is a little gray, sometimes.

But this has gotten rather far afield. The original post is about a person I think every honest person can see, is deliberately obstructing traffic.

The only option is to take each case as it comes. That is the reason for the gray area … No one writing a law can imagine every possible situation … so for laws to apply fairly and Justly in the real world … the people have to define “Fairness” and “Justice” and apply the concepts to the existing evidence.

The “gray-free law book” is some sort of AI/robotic overlord sci-fi movie premise. People Need to do the one thing we do better than most other life forms … which is Reasoning. We need to use our brains to make determinations handling ranges of factors which could never be programmed in advance into some system.

Because humans are biased, dishonest with themselves and others, sometimes shallow and willfully ignorant, and above all because emotion runs deeper than reason, people make unjust and downright evil decisions sometimes. Hopefully many of them can be repaired later … but often people do get screwed. That is Life. It is Not perfect.

What we as people need to do is nto to try to perfect the written laws … but to perfect the human being. We need to be teaching our children to be scrupulously honest with themselves and others from birth. We need to be teaching compassion and caring for others. We need to be teaching children that every one of us ids different and different is not wrong.

The most meticulously written laws can still be abused by those who do not respect other people. That is the problem. People who do not care about truth and who do not care about other people will do Anything for personal gain.

This current culture places so much emphasis on writing laws which criminals won’t follow anyway. We need to start teaching our children to act for the greater good and not selfish interest, or at least to consider others.

“Civics” used to be a class, and one thing it used to teach was that to be a citizen is not a free gift, it is a responsibility which bring privileges. We need to be teaching kids to think that way again … we have rights, and we have duties.

Meticulously crafted laws … would do nothing in the case of David Smith. The only thing an incredibly narrow writing and reading of the law might do is A.) offer his attorney more ways to get around the law and B.) give CB-HI more or less to complain about.

It would still come down to a judge or jury deciding id Smith was guilty.

You say guilty, so do I.. So, it seems, do most people here who actually ride on the roads and have a stake in the way laws are written and interpreted.

The only real argument is should cyclists be deified simply because they ride bicycles, or should all people be judged on their actions and not their modes of conveyance.

I would not think a good person would have any problem figuring out the right response in that question.

jon c. 

One can question how justice is administered without deifying the cyclist in question. My concern lies not in how he is dealt with as a cyclist, but as a citizen. A citizen who is operating on perhaps a bit of a different frequency than most. I recognize the need for a solution, but the "crime" in question really consists of causing inconvenience to the many. How hard can you really come down on that? A society should deal with its "eccentrics" as gently as possible. There but for blind luck go us all.

Paul Barnard

The law burdens vehicle operators not to impede traffic. There are two ways in Joey's scenario to avoid impeding. One is passing, the other is pulling over.

Let's look at the law.Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance
with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway
having width for not more than one lane of traffic in each
direction at less than the maximum posted speed and at such a
slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic, the driver shall, at the first opportunity when and
where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving
appropriate signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto
the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver may return to
the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the
movement can be made in safety and so as not to impede the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

In my comment to Joey, I said assuming it was safe and legal to pass it could be argued that Joey had a duty to pass or pull over. What is normal and reasonable movement of traffic on any road? I would say that barring any hazardous conditions the speed limit is normal and reasonable, and the wording of the law tends to support that. If not the speed limit, how would we arrive at normal and reasonable?

Paul Barnard

The same officer that wrote Mr.Smith his impeding ticket. Remember I said it could be argued that you had a duty to pass OR pull over under the law.

Paul Barnard

Thanks for taking time out to go into depth into the discussion Maelochs. If I understand your comments about lane positioning correctly, I disagree with you about his lane position being illegal. My interpretation of the law is that he could legally occupy any part of that lane that he was in. These folks agree.

https://www.bikelaw.com/2017/08/pennsylvania-bike-laws/

• Note: the requirement to stay “as far to the right as practicable” doesn’t apply where the road has a width of “not more than one lane of traffic in each direction”. It is lawful to ride in the middle of a street, for example, where there is no shoulder or where the shoulder is taken up by parking spaces.