David also asked: Yesterday (Sunday, April 1) on the Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami, a police officer was getting all upset about a group of about 50 – 100 cyclists taking up a whole lane of the road. He was screaming out of his window for us to “keep right.” The Rickenbacker causeway also has a bike lane painted on it. Could you please discuss the legal status of a group of cyclists taking an entire lane in a double-lane road? From reading your site, I believe a) that we are not impeding traffic because there is still another lane for vehicles to pass. b) we are indeed violating the “two abreast” rule.  c) We are not obligated to be in the bike lane because we are passing a steady stream of slower cyclists who are in the bike lane. d) If (hypothetically speaking) the bike lane was empty, we’d still spill over into the road lane, this time violating the statute. So, what rights does a large group of cyclists have to cycle as a group in the road?

Answer

Short answer:  None.

A cycling group is not a defined entity in the statutes.  Rather, each cyclist is operating a vehicle and has the same rights and duties as other drivers while in the roadway.  A bicycle lane is part of the roadway.

Cyclists do have some advantages not applicable to drivers of motor vehicles, such as no requirement to have a driver’s license, no points for a violation of traffic laws and  legally impeding traffic under some circumstances.  On the other hand, they are also required to “keep right” and in the bike lane under some circumstances.  There are many other posts on this site about the exceptions to the “keep right” rules and impeding traffic.

The premise of your question is already answered in your statement, “We are indeed violating the ‘two abreast’ rule.”  If you are admittedly operating unlawfully, how can we devise a statutory justification?

The provisions in the statutes that apply are:

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this chapter

Let’s not conveniently forget the part about “all the duties” of other drivers.

One of those duties is to comply with the provision that cyclists

(6) …. may not ride more than two abreast at any time except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Another is the requirement to ride within a single lane.  A bicycle lane is a lane.

(6) (Cont.) Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

Cyclists when traveling in a group do not have any special privileges.  In fact, they have a greater responsibility to ride lawfully since their presence creates problems for others.  I am aware of numerous situations throughout the state in which cyclists traveling in large groups routinely run lights and unlawfully take up a full lane and overflow into the adjacent lane, even the lane for on-coming traffic.   Among other locations, I have heard the complaint about Rickenbacker Causeway that groups sometimes overflow into both main travel lanes.  Some groups seem to feel that the roadway is their own personal racing venue, and that the laws do not apply to them.

I fully understand the fact that some cyclists travel in groups for a feeling of security that is not necessarily provided by a respect for the laws and cycling rights by others and full and fair enforcement of the laws that should protect cyclists.

Another consideration that is not addressed in the statutes is that when large groups of cyclists do ride legally, single file and taking the lane in substandard-width lanes, the line can be so long that it becomes virtually impossible for motorists to legally and safely overtake and pass.

I recommend joining organized cycling groups such as the Florida Bicycle Association, or in your area, the South Florida Cycling Coalition, to help them help you to resolve these problems and create a more cycling-friendly environment in Florida.

Herman also asked: Does the following apply even if the person riding a bicycle is the only traffic on the road?

s. 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a) …. 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 in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for bicycle use, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ….

Answer

The phrase “normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing” is not defined in the statutes and as far as I know, has not been the subject of case law or legal opinion that is applicable to bicycling.

Contrary to popular belief, bicyclists are vehicles and traffic.

s. 316.003 – Definitions

(2) Bicycle – Every vehicle propelled solely by human power

(75) Vehicle – Every device, in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway

(57) Traffic – Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and vehicles, streetcars, and other conveyances either singly or together while using any street or highway for purposes of travel.

The intent of the “keep right” provisions of the Bicycle Regulations” is clear.  Slower-moving bicyclists should not impede traffic under some circumstances.

A common sense reading of that phrase would indicate that the only existing traffic, the bicyclist, would be the normal speed of traffic at the time and therefore would not have to remain in the lane marked for bicycles or the right side of the roadway since there is no impediment to other traffic.

The statutes seem to dictate that bicyclists should use bike lanes when present, lacking cause. If there is a need to leave the bike lane or right side of a roadway without bike lanes to pass, prepare for a left turn, or avoid any unsafe condition, the statute is clear that it is legal to do so.

I am aware of one case in which it was argued that the normal speed of traffic is the posted speed limit.  I believe roadway agencies in some cases use 85% of the average motor vehicle speed as the posted speed limit, arguing that posted speeds lower than that encourage dangerous passing by frustrated drivers.  Is the “normal speed of traffic” actually higher than that posted?

The question could also be posed as one motorist traveling in the presence of a group of 100 bicyclists, or one bicyclist and one motorist.  What is the “normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing?”

As far as I know it is not definitively decided, but any reasonable approach to the question should reveal a common sense answer, that bicyclists that are not impeding other traffic are not violating this statute.

See also the other posts at this link.

http://flbikelaw.org/tag/impeding-traffic/

NE2 asked:  Why is 14 feet the accepted minimum for a “substandard-width” lane.  Florida Statute 316.515(1) says that a vehicle may be 102 inches (8.5 feet) wide, not including safety devices (e.g. mirrors). I don’t know how far mirrors are allowed to stick out, but I would assume at least 6 inches on each side. With a 3 foot passing clearance, that leaves only 1.5 feet for the bike in a 14-foot lane, certainly not enough for safe operation.

Answer

You have correctly cited the applicable statute.

s. 316.515 – Maximum Width, Height, Length

(1) Width Limitation – The total outside width of any vehicle or the load thereon may not exceed 102 inches, exclusive of safety devices determined by the department to be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of motor vehicles.

Vehicles that are even wider may be encountered on the roadways.  It is not realistic to try to define a substandard-width lane based on the widest vehicle that could possibly be on the road.  Rather, it is defined based on the safety of the roadway users.

We must look at this question from the different perspectives of the cyclist and the overtaking driver.

A substandard width lane is defined in the bicycle regulations, and is one of the many conditions and circumstances that gives the cyclist the right to leave the right-most curb or edge of the roadway. I believe the intent of that provision is to allow a cyclist to control the lane and discourage unsafe passing within narrow lanes. Note that the statute does not specify the actual width of a substandard-width lane.

s.  316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a) 3. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Without regard to the width of the lane, the burden for safety when overtaking and passing a bicyclist lies entirely with the overtaking driver if the cyclist is otherwise obeying the law.  The driver must pass at a safe distance, and no less than 3 feet.

s.  316.083 – Overtaking and Passing A Vehicle

(1) …. The driver of a vehicle overtaking a bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle must pass the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet between the vehicle and the bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicle.

The driver of the overtaking vehicle must make the determination that it is safe before passing.  The driver of a Smart Car may be able to safely pass within a 12-foot wide lane if the cyclist is to the right.  The driver of the vehicle you describe in the question will have to wait until it is safe to change lanes to pass a cyclist in a lane that is 14 feet or even wider.

The width of 14 feet is derived from Florida Department of Transportation planning and design guidelines.  Note that they also indicate the 14 feet is the width that allows MOST motor vehicles to safely pass a cyclist while remaining within the lane.  Drivers of wider vehicles must change lanes to pass.

Plans Preparation Manual

Chapter 8 – Bicycle Facilities

Section 8.4.3 Wide Curb Lanes

Wide outside curb lanes are through lanes which provide a minimum of 14 feet in width.  This width allows most motor vehicles to pass cyclists within the travel lane, which is not possible in more typical 10-12 foot wide travel lanes.

Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Florida Greenbook)

Chapter 9 – Bicycle Facilities

B.3  Curb Lanes

Fourteen feet is the recommended lane width for shared use in a wide curb lane, and is the minimum width that will allow passenger cars to safely pass bicyclists within a single lane.

More detail of the various rights and responsibilities of roadway users can be found in the post on Substandard-Width Lanes.

Tom asked:  The city is finally repaving a very busy street and city officials have told me they want to discourage bike use on this street. They won’t consider bike lanes because of the streets narrow width and won’t consider removing parking. Can you suggest a good alternate?  There are a lot of businesses on this street I want to ride to including a bike shop!

Answer

The best alternative is to encourage cyclists to safely and legally use the roadway.  Too often, we depend on bicycle lanes, which can be problematic in some circumstances.  Cyclists are operating vehicles and have the same rights and duties as other drivers.  The most basic of those rights is the use of the roadway.  We need to learn to drive in traffic, just as we do with our motor vehicles.  The Florida Bicycle Association has an excellent course to help.  You may want to have some local cyclists become instructors to teach safe and legal cycling practices to others there.  See http://cyclingsavvy.org/

It is troubling that local officials are trying to discourage cycling, contrary to the trend in Florida and nationwide to encourage people to take advantage of the many benefits of cycling.  Perhaps you could enlist all the local cyclists in a campaign to reverse that trend in your community.

John asked:  Recently my friend and I were stopped for impeding traffic on a road way of less than 14 feet. I looked up the law on your site which states on roadways less then 14 ft, the vehicle passes must use the oncoming lane to pass safely. The local Sheriff’s Department states that if a car must use the on coming lane to pass then it is interpreted as impeding traffic. My question is even if a single bicycle rider was passed on a 14 or less width roadway, then is not enough clearance to give the bicyclist 3 feet clearance on the pass without using the on coming lane. Which is it?

Answer

Please feel free to provide the information below to any law enforcement department.  We welcome any legal opinions, case law and court precedent.  We try to provide information that may not have been fully considered.

I wish it were as easy as 14 feet or not.  Our explanation of the 14 feet is a common sense application using all the available information and safe cycling practices.  There is no uniform interpretation of the traffic laws over all jurisdictions.  An example relating to this issue is this article:

http://flbikelaw.org/2010/03/two-citations-identical-circumstances-opposite-verdicts/

Most officers receive no formal training in the laws related to bicycling.  We hope to improve both of the above situations with the Bicycle Law Enforcement Program.

The bicycling community must step up and provide financial support to complete the program.  The cost will be about $100,000 for program development, web design, illustration, animation, filming and production and duplication and distribution.

Before we go any further, let’s correct the title of this article.  A proper title is:

Bicycles Impeding Other Traffic

Bicycles are a part of the normal mix of traffic.

FS 316.003 – Definitions

(57) Traffic –Pedestrians …. ridden and herded animals, and vehicles …. while using any street or highway for purposes of travel.

Bicycles are vehicles.

(2)  Bicycle – Every vehicle propelled solely by human power

Bicycle operators have the same rights and duties as other drivers

FS 316.2065 - Bicycle Regulations

(1)  Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle

In some situations, a bicyclist must keep to the right side of the roadway.  Even when keeping right, cyclists sometimes delay other traffic.  There are many circumstances require a cyclist to leave the right side of the roadway.

For the purpose of this discussion, assume the bicyclist is otherwise riding legally.

We will be considering a single cyclist or a line of cyclists, one behind the other.  Cyclists riding two abreast are discussed in another article:

http://flbikelaw.org/2009/07/cyclists-riding-two-abreast/

While most motorists are cooperative and try to insure the safety of all roadway users, some believe cyclists must avoid delaying them and do not understand or care about cyclists’ rights or safety.  They may not consider the many other things that delay them in the same way as bicyclist.

What does impeding traffic mean?  The act of impeding in itself is neither legal nor illegal.  Impeding may become unlawful if it is due to an unlawful act.

First, let’s define exactly what we are talking about when using the word “impede”.

One definition is simply to block or hinder.  Note that it is simply a physical act, and neither legal nor illegal.

Webster’ Dictionary

Impede – To retard in movement or progress by means of obstacles or hindrances; obstruct; hinder.

Impeding is not specifically defined in the statutes, but there is a description that might help.  Note the use of the phrase “normal and reasonable movement of traffic”.

FS 316.183 – Unlawful Speed

(5)  …. such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic ….

What is reasonable and normal?

In many situations, traffic must actually come to a full stop, such as a school bus impeding traffic while embarking children, or an officer directing traffic.

These are examples of traffic being impeded and are certainly reasonable and normal.

Drivers are impeded all the time on the roadways.  When you are stopping for a traffic light or a stop sign, it is reasonable and normal.  Traffic signs and signals are intended to impede traffic.

Stopping to wait for traffic to clear so we can safely pass a stopped garbage truck or a mail carrier is reasonable and normal.

Stopping as required by law for a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, or at a marked crosswalk in other locations.

Someone who cannot go as fast as they might like because of traffic is being impeded, but it is not necessarily unlawful.

A driver may want to drive at the speed limit, which 60 mph, but cannot safely pass another vehicle traveling at 57 mph due to oncoming traffic.  That happens all the time, and is reasonable and normal.  There is no unlawful act.

If a driver can pass by changing lanes in a reasonable amount of time, there is no unreasonable delay.

…. impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

In lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle to safely pass a bicyclist within the lane, the motorist must change lanes to pass. That is the definition of a substandard-width lane, which is discussed in another article:

http://flbikelaw.org/2010/01/substandard-width-lanes-updated/

Assume the lane is 10 feet wide, certainly not wide enough for an 8 foot wide truck to safely pass within the lane.  If the adjacent lane is not clear, the motorist must wait.  The bicyclist is impeding traffic, but it is not unlawful.

We would all probably agree that a driver going 30 mph on the interstate highway, minimum speed 50, with no safety reason such as weather, etc, and causing other traffic to back up, would be illegally impeding traffic under FS 316.183.  That is not reasonable and normal.

The same would be true of a bicyclist impeding traffic on a limited access highway, which is clearly not legal because bicycles are not permitted there, and is not reasonable and normal.

FS 316.091 - Limited Access Facilities

(2)  …. no person shall operate upon a limited access facility any bicycle ….

If an action is not prohibited in the statutes, it is not unlawful.  Other than the two abreast situation in another article, there is nothing in the statutes that says that a bicyclist:

• Can impede traffic, or
• Cannot impede traffic

The statute that discusses bicyclists impeding traffic while riding abreast says that two cyclists riding abreast cannot impede traffic in some circumstances.  Surely that must mean that there are other conditions under which bicyclists not riding abreast may legally impede traffic.

Let’s go back to the statute about unlawful speed and impeding traffic.  Note that it applies only to motor vehicles.

FS 316.183 – Unlawful Speed

(5) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

The definition of “motor vehicle” in the statutes specifically excludes bicycles.

FS 316.003 – Definitions

(21) Motor Vehicle -Any self-propelled vehicle …., but not including any bicycle

Bicyclists are not included in the statute above that prohibits motor vehicles from impeding the reasonable and normal movement of traffic.

We have determined that impeding traffic can be either legal or not legal.  Also, the statute about unlawful speed does not apply to bicycles.  The statutes neither prohibit nor allow bicyclists to impede traffic.

When otherwise riding legally, bicyclists by their nature are normally slower than motor vehicles.  If they were never allowed to cause other traffic to slow, they would effectively be prohibited from using the roadways.  That certainly was not the intent of the legislation giving bicyclists all the rights and duties of other drivers.

FS 316.2065 - Bicycle Regulations

(1) Every person propelling a vehicle by human power has all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle.

Let’s talk about a few cases of cyclists operating legally in situations that may slow other traffic.

When the statute states that a cyclist is required to keep right except under certain circumstances, such as unsafe conditions, it is implied that that other traffic may be affected.

The details of the circumstances requiring a bicyclist to keep right and the exceptions will be discussed in detail in other articles.  For now, let’s just concentrate on the concept of impeding traffic when otherwise operating legally.  These are a few situations in which a cyclist may need to leave the right side of the roadway to operate safely.

FS 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

(5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle …. shall (keep right) except under any of the following situations:

1. When overtaking and passing

2. When preparing for a left turn

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any (unsafe) condition.

One statute is quite specific about the cyclist impeding traffic legally.  When preparing for a left turn, a cyclist may use the full lane from which the turn will be made.

FS 316.151 - Required Position and Method of Turning at Intersections

A person riding a bicycle and intending to turn left in accordance with this section is entitled to the full use of the lane from which the turn may legally be made.

Clearly, the intent is that the cyclist will sometimes impede other traffic, but it is the safest operation and is entirely legal.  Safety is always paramount in the statutes.

Even though the other statutes are not as specific, when a cyclist is otherwise riding legally and impeding other traffic, there is no violation.

A national program for law enforcement officers discusses bicyclists impeding traffic.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Enhancing Bicycle Safety: Law Enforcement’s Role

Some people believe it is illegal for a bicyclist to travel on the road if other traffic has to slow down – such a cyclist would be impeding traffic. However, this belief has no basis in law.

Some States have statutes to prohibit impeding traffic, with language such as the following: “No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation.  These statutes usually specifically apply to motor vehicles.

Even if the statute does not use the term “motor vehicle,” it is clear that traveling a bicycle at normal bicycle speeds is not a violation of this rule. Such an interpretation would have the effect of prohibiting bicycles on many roads, which is clearly not what was intended.

In Florida law, cyclists have the same rights and duties as other drivers, which would not be the case if cyclists were prohibited from use of the roads.

FS 316.2065 – Bicycle Regulations

Same rights and duties of other drivers

The NHTSA program is not specific to each state’s traffic laws.  Florida’s Bicycle Law Enforcement Program will supplement the national program by providing Florida-specific statutes.

The national program is available on CD-ROM at no cost by sending a fax to 301-386-2194.

Although a bicyclist can legally impede other traffic under some circumstances, the cyclist cannot disrupt traffic by moving right or left in the roadway at will.

Bicyclists are operators of vehicles and are subject to all other traffic laws, including those that dictate safe lateral movement in the roadway.

In reference to the substandard-width lane:  As you know, I work on A1A which is a substandard-width lane roadway. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour and there is a no passing zone. If a bike rider was riding single or double and not maintaining the normal flow of traffic would this be a violation?
If not, could you please explain where you are getting your legal opinion for this statute?

Answer:

I will address this in three separate posts.

1. Is this a violation? In this post.
2. No passing zone.
3. Legal basis for this site.

It appears that we have crossed messages and you haven’t seen the previous post about bicyclists riding abreast and impeding traffic.  I believe that answers most of the question, but I will add the following:

There doesn’t seem to be any question about the single cyclist taking the lane in a substandard-width lane.  The statute is quite clear that in that case the cyclist is not required to keep right, even if other traffic is impeded.

If two cyclists are impeding traffic while riding abreast in a wide outside lane (14 feet minimum width), it is a violation and they should keep right and single up.

Now imagine a single cyclist taking the lane in a narrow lane and a second cyclist riding ten feet behind or ten feet ahead, but not exactly abreast, or one behind the other.  They are not riding abreast, and may be legally impeding traffic.  If they move alongside each other they are now riding abreast, and impeding traffic exactly as they were before.  If the phrase in the statute is taken out of context, and the intent of the statute is not considered, some might conclude that a violation has occurred.  Common sense would dictate otherwise.

Two cyclists riding abreast in a narrow lane are impeding traffic, but no more than the single cyclist taking the lane.

This is an example of the statutes being written without clearly considering and accounting for all possible circumstances.  I believe this is one that needs to be clarified.

Writing citations that are based on such a tenuous interpretation of one phrase the statute and disregarding the intent of the statute would not seem to be an effective use of an officer’s valuable time.  There are plenty of opportunities to cite illegal acts that might result in cyclists and motorists being endangered.  Illegal passing is one of the most common and most dangerous on narrow roadways.

Can a driver legally pass a bicyclist that is taking the lane in a “No Passing Zone”?

Answer:

Frequently, cyclists and other vehicles impede other traffic in lanes with solid double yellow center lines indicating “No Passing”.

If a garbage truck is stopped and other traffic cannot pass within the lane, what is the appropriate action?

How about a slow-moving tractor on the roadway?

How about a bicycle?

Can the driver pass in these circumstances?  What statute applies?

The law takes these circumstances into account and provides a solution, albeit one that is not entirely specific to all cases.  The statute that applies is:

FS 316.0875 – No Passing Zones

(2)  …. no driver shall at any time drive on the left side of the roadway with such no-passing zone ….

(3)   This section does not apply when an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway ….

We probably would agree that a stopped garbage truck is an obstruction.  Probably a slow-moving tractor.  How about a bicycle?  Again, the law isn’t specific, so we need to use some common sense.

If a cyclist is traveling 35 mph in a 35 mph zone, it is clear that a motor vehicle cannot pass under the statute above.

If a cyclist is traveling 5 mph in that same zone, it seems that the obstruction rule would apply, and the motorist can cross the double-yellow line to pass.

How about 10mph, or 20, or 25?

We don’t have a definitive answer.  The law leaves that to the discretion of those involved, and an officer would need to determine if the intent of the law is fulfilled and the passing can be accomplished safely, or if someone is placed in danger due to the actions taken.

There are many locations that have double yellow centerlines for very long distances with narrow lanes. If motorists could not legally cross the centerline to pass a bicyclist, even one riding far to the right, they could never legally pass.  The “obstruction” clause seems to solve that problem.

Of course, there are other statutes that limit the use of the on-coming lane to pass.

FS 316.083 – Overtaking and Passing a Vehicle

(1)…. shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

FS 316.085 – Limitations on Overtaking, Passing, Changing Lanes and Changing Course

(1)  No vehicle shall be driven to the left of the center of the roadway …. clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic …. without interfering with …. any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction …. return to an authorized lane of travel …. before coming within 200 feet of any approaching vehicle.

The lane is not wide enough for two vehicles (bike and car) and a cyclist takes the lane.  Since the cyclist takes the whole lane, can cyclists now ride double without being in violation of impeding traffic?

Answer:

That’s a great question, and one that is easily misunderstood.  Your question is short, but to adequately answer is lengthy, so please bear with me.  One part of the statute can be taken out of context, and applied literally, without considering the intent of the statute.  The appropriate paragraph is:

FS 316.2065 (6)

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may 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 may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing.

Good work on your assessment of the first part.  A substandard-width lane, which is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side-by-side, a minimum width of 14 feet, is one of the specific exceptions to the “keep right” provisions in FS 316.2065, Bicycle Regulations.

A single cyclist impeding traffic in a narrow lane, and many other circumstances, may be entirely legal.   In many situations is also the safest option for cyclists.  “Taking the lane” in substandard-width lanes discourages motor vehicle operators from attempting to pass in an unsafe and illegal manner.  The farther a cyclist is to the right in narrow lanes, the closer and more dangerous the pass by motor vehicles.  Impatient and illegal unsafe passing endangers not only the cyclist, but possibly the overtaking driver and oncoming traffic.

OPD Officer, Bill Edgar, rides two-abreast with Mighk Wilson on Robinson St in downtown Orlando.

The purpose of the statute is to safely facilitate traffic flow.  If cyclists riding two-abreast are not impeding traffic, they are in compliance with the law.  That can happen in a number of ways.

Note that cyclists in a bike lane may ride two, three, or more abreast.

The statute specifies “traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic”, so if the cyclists riding abreast are traveling at the “normal speed of traffic” or faster, they are within the law.

Obviously, if there is no other traffic, they are not impeding anyone.

If they are on a multi-lane roadway in either a narrow lane or a wide outside lane, and traffic can easily change lanes to pass, they are ok also.  They are not impeding traffic.

Even if the roadway is a single wide lane in each direction, if there is no on-coming traffic, two cyclists riding double are not impeding traffic, since overtaking traffic can easily move to the on-coming lane to pass.

The statute does not clearly state it, but if one cyclist is legally impeding traffic in a narrow lane, and a second cyclist is riding alongside, the two of them are not impeding traffic more than the single cyclist.  They are complying with the intent of the law.

To strictly meet the letter of the law, they would single up and ride one behind the other while taking the lane.

So does it matter if the are riding two-abreast or singled up and taking the lane in that situation?  They are riding safely.  The impact on traffic is the same.  Other drivers must wait until a safe and legal opportunity to pass.

The only situation in which the “impeding traffic” part of this statute is truly violated when cyclists are riding two-abreast is when:

• they are in a lane which is 14 feet wide, and
• traveling slower than the “normal speed of traffic”, and
• there is no means of easily overtaking and passing by changing lanes.

In that case, the cyclists should single up and “keep right”

Officers should insure they are fully versed in the statute and understand all of the possible combinations above and exercise their discretion to insure that the statutory intent of safe and reasonable traffic flow is fulfilled.

One last point:  Note that the statute says “Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway”.  The paved shoulder is not part of the roadway by statutory definition, so that must be taken into consideration when evaluating this situation.