Fortunately in most (43) US states the “impeding traffic law” only applies to motorists, not the drivers of non-motorized vehicles, and two states have no such law (HI and MA). Only 5 states, CA, MI, NH, OH and TX have impeding traffic laws that are badly written to improperly criminalize bicyclists.

A motorist that is “impeding traffic” can easily press the accelerator to increase their speed to a level that would be considered normal and reasonable for a motor vehicle driver, whereas a bicyclist cannot, and this critical distinction is why such laws should not and do not apply to bicyclists in most US states.

Reed’s case is but a symptom of improper laws in 5 US states. The Selz defense (not Trotwood, which was prosecuting Selz) may or may work in Texas, but it should not be seen as a generally applicable precedent, rather it is a stop-gap measure until we can fix the bad laws in CA, MI, NH, OH and TX.

Also note that the throughput arguments are specious because traffic lights are the main cause of delay, not slower drivers. Even if all the traffic was moving at Reed’s speed, they would still have to spend a substantial amount of time queuing at traffic lights, and these wait times are an even bigger hit to their trip times compared to when they are moving more slowly. These “speed of continuous flow/throughput” arguments only apply to grade separated freeways (with not at grade crossings or controls) where the traffic volumes are low enough that stop-and-go traffic doesn’t develop.

Right. The fundamental point is this. If you’re driving a Buick at 15 mph in a travel lane with a 35 mph max speed limit and 35-45 mph traffic, you’re just as likely to get a ticket for impeding traffic as you are for speeding if going 55 mph there, even if there are other lanes available for passing. This is how “impeding” is interpreted in our society, and it has nothing to do with an anti-bike bias.

It’s only fair to apply the same interpretation/meaning of “impeding” to bicyclists in the same situation. It’s foolish to try to argue that 15 mph in a 35+ mph traffic is not impeding.

The only defense is the one held up by Trotwood v. Selz: one cannot be legally faulted for going too slow if he or she is going as fast as is safely and reasonably possible.

In any case, the act of changing lanes “mixes things up” and slows down throughput. Don’t forget that throughput has become the most important thing as far as most motorists are concerned. Another way to say slow down throughput is to say that something impedes it.

Whatever speed they are traveling at – their “normal” speed – is of their own choosing. A speed limit is just that: a limit. It carries no mandate. One person’s normal speed is not necessarily another’s, which would leave us open to enforcing the law based on each individual plaintiff’s whim if that were in fact the standard. In the absence of a posted minimum speed I can’t see how this is enforceable.

Now, the statue says: “An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law”. How is changing lanes to avoid a slower moving vehicle not a “normal and reasonable movement”? Indeed, I would say it is expected of any licensed vehicle operator. Is it not the reason the second lane is there at all? If anyone is taking liberties with the interpretation of the statute I would suggest it is the Ennis PD*.

*disclaimer: I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

I don’t think that’s quite it. It has nothing to do with anyone’s “wish” – it has to do with their actual “normal” speed at that time. The general view seems to be that if their ability to continue traveling at that speed is hindered to some significant degree, then it’s “impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic”.

I don’t understand why so many bicyclists want to deny that traveling much slower than others has a significant hindering or impeding effect on those others. If they want to consider themselves “hindered” or “impeded” by that, so what? That’s not even an anti-bike issue, because relatively slow travel that is significantly slower than others is considered by most to be impeding regardless of the mode of conveyance.

The focus should not be on whether slow travel hinders or impedes others, but whether such hindering or impeding is unlawful when the “impeder” cannot go any faster.

Lucky for you we reformed our courts back in 1976, something that Texas still hasn’t done. Those judges in Texas really have to run for office the way that some of our judges did. We “sort of” have elections now, but not really.

We had this crazy-quilt patchwork prior to the Constitutional amendments passed in ’68 which didn’t take effect right away, and such abusive traffic courts, that you would have like been found guilt of SOMETHING for driving that crazy thing around.

Now, someone has to be an attorney to be a judge, but not back then and still not in many states.

ChipSeal, I am on your side, I sent you some money and wish you the best of luck so please don’t be too offended: I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice but it is clear to me from reading your posts that you need to hand over the reigns to a lawyer and hopefully a good one.

It sounds like Selz was in a very similar situation to you, had a sharp lawyer and only just won his appeal.

What do you think is the difference between the dictionary and that legal use of of “impede”? I see no difference.

I mean, if you’re suggesting that “impede” in the legal sense means “in violation of the impeding law”, then the use of “impede” in the impeding law itself is not used in the legal sense!

That is, say someone is driving down the highway and slows down to avoid some hazard, a slowing that impedes others. Is that impeding, or not? Legally, it is impeding, however, since it’s being done “for safe operation”, it’s not a violation of the impeding law.

Perhaps an even better example is stopping for a red light. Clearly that impedes those behind you, but, of course it’s not a violation of the law because that impeding is being done in order to be “in compliance of the law”. But the point here is it’s still impeding, in both the normal and legal sense, it just happens to be impeding that is lawful!