By Steven M. Magas, Ohio’s Bike Lawyer[1]

Have you ever wondered what “The Law” actually SAYS about riding a bicycle?  Many Ohio riders are familiar with some of the common rules or phrases.  The “AFRAP” rule, for example.  Many of us also have a sense that we have a “right” to ride our bicycles on the roadway, but where does that right come from? What limitations are there on that right? Can that right be taken away? Can cities pass their own bike laws? Can those be different from State Law?

A few years ago, a number of us on the Board of the Ohio Bicycle Federation took on the challenge of listing the most important laws applicable to cyclists in Ohio.  You can read the actual results of our efforts on the OBF’s website.

Below are annotated excerpts of laws that EVERY Ohio Cyclist should be familiar with – at least those who want to venture out on the roadway. I’ve highlighted in bold some of the most critical language and have added my own commentary in italics to the original OBF commentary.

Where to start? Why at the beginning of course – with Title 45 of the Ohio Revised Code. “Title 45” contains the laws that govern operation of all vehicles on Ohio roads, including bicycles.  The laws describe what a driver is required to do or prohibited from doing. But laws do not tell people how to drive.  That is the function of a driver’s manual.

You can find ALL Ohio laws in the Ohio Revised Code, and the Traffic Laws in Title 45.  If you actually go to the library and want to pull the books off the shelf, the entire Ohio Revised Code is a huge set of bright red books. The traffic laws are found in Title 45. Chapter 4511 of Title 45 contains the “Rules of the Road” and Chapter 4513 has the equipment rules.

Be warned, though, that these are only the STATE laws.  Ohio is a “Home Rule” state. The “Home Rule” provision in the Ohio Constitution allows local governments to pass their own laws.  There are 88 counties in Ohio and hundreds of cities, villages, and other political, “ordinance-passing” jurisdictions. Each political body can and does pass its own laws.  You will find local laws governing bicycle riding in many of these municipalities. Some of these local laws are… well… just stupid and contrary to state law [and common sense].

I am including a discussion of  the “Home Rule” issue… and how you might be able to fighthowever, Bottom Line, ALWAYS CONSULT LOCAL LISTINGS for additional laws applicable in your neighborhood!

Remember, you can also order a FREE sturdy 4×6 card with a very brief summary of key Ohio Bike Laws, and code sections. I can send you 1 or a dozen, or 50 or 100 or even 1000+ if you’re really friendly. They make great Stocking Stuffers, Party Favors and Swag Bag Gifts! Just SEND ME A NOTE at BikeLawyer at Me.Com and tell me how many you want, and where to send them.

SO, without further ado, I present….. Ohio’s Bike Laws…



  • 4501.01.  Definitions. As used in this chapter and Chapters 4503., 4505., 4507., 4509., 4511.,4513., 4515., and 4517. of the Revised Code, and in the penal laws, except as otherwise provided:

(A)”Vehicle” means every device, including a motorized bicycle, in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except that “vehicle” does not include any motorized wheelchair, any electric personal assistive mobility device, any device that is moved by power collected from overhead electric trolley wires or that is used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks, or any device, other than a bicycle, that is moved by human power.


(G) “Bicycle” means every device, other than a device that is designed solely for use as a play vehicle by a child, that is propelled solely by human power upon which a person may ride, and that has two or more wheels, any of which is more than fourteen inches in diameter.

Comment: A History Lesson is in order here.  In the 1880’s bicycle operators wielded a LOT of political power.  The “Good Roads Movement” was an organized political effort to force municipalities to pave roads.  Farmers and cyclists banded together with some business interests, but cyclists led the way. The newly formed “League of American Bicyclists” developed a following of more than 1,000,000 very quickly.  Courts began to recognize cyclists as having rights on the roadways, particularly when those new-fangled MOTOR vehicles started popping up!

In the late 1800’s the very first Vehicle Codes started to be written to try to put some order on the roadways.  In virtually every case, including Ohio, a “bicycle” was included in the definition of “vehicle”  and was recognized as having a right to the roadway. Certain special provisions for bikes were put into play, but all in all, cyclists used their political clout to get us a spot on the pavement!

In Ohio, a bicycle is defined as a vehicle and thus is governed by a uniform set of rules common to all vehicles and a small set of specific rules for bicycles.  (There are other specific rules for other vehicle types, such as trucks or busses.)  The definition of what types of things are “bicycles” was recently revised to be broader in scope.  The annotated list below summarizes the most important parts of the traffic rules and equipment rules that govern bicycle driving.  People who try to make up their own rules have an accident rate five times higher than knowledgeable cyclists who follow the rules of the road.

This definition has changed a bit in recent years. When I first wrote this piece in 2010 it was limited to 2-wheelers and certain 3-wheelers. Well… the bike market adn recumbent market has exploded since then and law was amended to capture any 3-wheel adult bicycle. Then we became aware of a problem involving a FOUR-wheeler… a fellow in Lakewood, Ohio was being told by Police there that he could not pedal a 4-wheeled bike around town with his autistic son because it didn’t meet the definition of “bicycle” in the Code. So… we pushed to change the definition again, and the final version, shown above, came into being 

  • 4511.07.  Local traffic regulations. (A) Sections 4511.01 to 4511.78, 4511.99, and 4513.01 to 4513.37 of the Revised Code do not prevent local authorities from carrying out the following activities with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power:


(8) Regulating the operation of bicycles: provided that no such regulation shall be fundamentally inconsistent with the uniform rules of the road prescribed by this chapter and that no such regulation shall prohibit the use of bicycles on any public street or highway except as provided in section 4511.051 of the Revised Code;

(9) Requiring the registration and licensing of bicycles, including the requirement of a registration fee for residents of the local authority;

(B) No ordinance or regulation enacted under division (A)(4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (10) of this section shall be effective until signs giving notice of the local traffic regulations are posted upon or at the entrance to the highway or part of the highway affected, as may be most appropriate.

Comment: When we looked at the state of the law in preparing the 2006 Better Bicycling Bill, there was a lot of discussion of the patchwork quilt of local laws that all of us faced.  In the Cincinnati area alone, there are more than FORTY separate jurisdictions capable of passing “bike laws.”  The number near Cleveland was even higher.  Since there was no restriction on what those laws could say, we often found neighboring cities would have wildly different “bike laws.” Not only did this make it difficult for cyclists to know and obey local law, it just didn’t make sense.

The most important of the reforms passed in the 2006 Better Bicycling Bill requires that any local regulations be consistent with the uniform rules of the road.  In addition, signs are required to tell of any permitted local regulations.  Unfortunately, some communities have been very slow to remove non-conforming ordinances that mandate unsafe practices.

You MUST know your local rules. Sometimes local laws get passed that are just…stupid. For a review of some of those  you can read my piece here- a Guide to the Stupid Laws.

  • 4511.22.  Slow Speed

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.


(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.

Comment: The “slow speed” statute was amended in 2006 as the result of a case I handled – State v. Selz.  In the Selz case, Steve Selz was a true “transportation cyclist” – he owned no car and went everywhere by bike.  In 1999, Steve was riding on S.R. 44 in Trotwood – a 5 lane, 45 mph roadway.  After stopping at a light, Steve pedaled off in the right lane, with cars behind him.  A police officer didn’t like seeing the cars behind him and pulled him over, citing him for “impeding traffic.”

I took the case pro bono, to try to help Steve out.  At trial, we presented expert testimony that what Steve did was perfectly appropriate and that his speed was appropriate FOR A CYCLIST.  The prosecution argued that if he could not travel at the 45 mph speed limit, he shouldn’t be on the road blocking “traffic.”  I argued that under the definition of traffic in the Revised Code, Steve WAS “traffic” just like any slow moving vehicle.

The trial judge disagreed and found Steve Guilty.  We appealed and, with the help of the OBF, publicized Steve’s case through the Internet.  Trotwood got emails from all over the WORLD chastising it for prosecuting Steve.  We won a 2-1 decision on appeal, with the court holding that in analyzing an “impeding traffic” charge, the court must consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator.  Since the officer conceded that Steve was going at a reasonable speed for a cyclist, the court overturned the conviction.

When we looked at the state of the law in preparing the 2006 Better Bicycling Bill, we thought it would be important to change the “Slow Speed” statute to incorporate the holding of State v. Selz and the highlighted language was added.

  • 4511.25.  Lanes of travel upon roadways of sufficient width.

(A) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle or trackless trolley 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, or when making a left turn under the rules governing such movements;

(2) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;

(3) When driving upon a roadway divided into three or more marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon;

(4) When driving upon a roadway designated and posted with signs for one-way traffic;

(5) When otherwise directed by a police officer or traffic control device.

(B)(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful 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, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction:

(b) When preparing for a left turn;

(c) When the driver must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on the driver’s intended route.

(B)(2) Nothing in division (B)(1) of this section requires a driver of a slower vehicle to compromise the driver’s safety to allow overtaking by a faster vehicle.

Comment: Section 4511.25(A) is a general rule that applies to all vehicles, including bicycles.  Some people think it is safer to ride on the left to “see traffic coming”.  This is illegal and wrong and VERY DANGEROUS!  Pedestrians are required to walk facing traffic where there are no sidewalks so they can sidestep off the road if necessary.  But you cannot sidestep a bike.  Riding on the left is both illegal and dangerous.  Crash statistics show that wrong way riding has about 3½ times the risk as riding on the right.

Section 4511.25(B) simply means that slower vehicles should not unnecessarily delay faster traffic.  (See also § 4511.55 below.)  The language of (B)(2) is important as it gives a bicycle operator the right to make decisions, when being passed, based on safety concerns.

  • 4511.27.  Overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction. The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles or trackless trolleys proceeding in the same direction:

(A) The operator of a vehicle or trackless trolley overtaking another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction 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 or trackless trolley.

(B) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the operator of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle at the latter’s audible signal, and he shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

Comment: Since cyclists usually ride near the right side of the road, beginners are tempted to pass slow or stopped traffic on the right, especially in a “bicycle lane” with a painted line.  Passing on the right is often dangerous and, in many cases, illegal.

There is a move afoot to add a “three foot rule” to the passing law.  In 2009 a bill was introduced into the Ohio legislature [HB 174] which would establish a safe passing distance of “not less than three feet” whenever a motor vehicle overtakes a bicycle.  In 2013 another bill was introduced, but it died in the Ohio Senate. In 2015 the bill was re-introduced again.  This time we think the bill has some legs.  At this writing [June 2015], the bill is expected to move out of Committee and to the floor of the House in the next week or so. Hopefully, by the NEXT time I edit this page the bill will have become law. I have testified several times in Columbus on “bike” bills, and hope to do so again on this one.

  • 4511.31.  Hazardous zones

(A) The department of transportation may determine those portions of any state highway where overtaking and passing other traffic or driving to the left of the center or center line of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may, by appropriate signs or markings on the highway, indicate the beginning and end of such zones. …

(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply when all of the following apply:

(1) The slower vehicle is proceeding at less than half the speed of the speed limit applicable to that location.

(2) The faster vehicle is capable of overtaking and passing the slower vehicle without exceeding the speed limit.

(3) There is sufficient clear sight distance to the left of the center or center line of the roadway to meet the overtaking and passing provisions of section 4511.29 of the Revised Code, considering the speed of the slower vehicle.

Comment: This is not a “bike law” as it applies to any type of slower moving vehicle.  However, Section 4511.31(B) should help reduce tension between cyclists and faster drivers.  Now, motorists can pass bicyclists, or Amish buggies or slow moving farm equipment, in “no passing” zones IF passing is safe and the three elements of Section (B) are met.  This was an important addition to the law which we incorporated in the 2006 Better Bicycling Bill.

  • 4511.36.  Rules for turns at intersections. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall be governed by the following rules:

(A) Approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(B) At any intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each roadway entering the intersection, an approach for a left turn shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof and by passing to the right of such center line where it enters the intersection and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center line of the roadway being entered.  Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

Comment: The rules for turns are exactly the same for bicycles as for other vehicles – merge to the appropriate position (to the right for right turns, to the left for left turns), yield to any traffic that has the right of way and then turn.  

Getting into position for a left turn may involve merging across one or more lanes of traffic.  If traffic is heavy, you should start doing this early enough to take advantage of any gaps in traffic.  Otherwise, there may not be a gap when you need it.  

Interesting to note the use of that goofy word, “Practicable.”  It comes up below in one of the most important rules of the road for cyclists, yet is completely UNDEFINED in the Ohio Revised Code.  If you do a search of the entire O.R.C. for the word, you see that it is used over 250 times int eirh code…all without a definition. 

In most laws, the use of the word “practicable” comes in the phrase “as soon as practicable” and defines a time when some act must be completed.  Another use is found in the Rules for Use of Alternating Current”  in MINES [
§ 1567.17] as follows: If feed wires are installed in entries that are not equipped with trolleys, they are to be installed as close to the rib as practicable.

Clearly “practicable” has a meaning that includes SAFETY and REASONABLENESS built into it.  This is what I have been arguing for years [and what we pushed for in 2006 when 4511.55’s AFRAP law was amended].

  • 4511.39.  Turn and stop signals. No person shall turn a vehicle or trackless trolley or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such person has exercised due care to ascertain that the movement can be made with reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided.

When required, a signal of intention to turn or move right or left shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle or trackless trolley before turning, except that in the case of a person operating a bicycle, the signal shall be made not less than one time but is not required to be continuous.  A bicycle operator is not required to make a signal if the bicycle is in a designated turn lane, and a signal shall not be given when the operator’s hands are needed for the safe operation of the bicycle. …

Comment: Never turn or change lanes without first yielding to any traffic that has the right of way, and give a signal if possible.  However, skip the signal if your hand is needed for control or brakes. This is an important addition to the Bike Laws. Motorcycles have turn signals – both hands are required for motorcycle operation as they have to deal with the clutch and throttle and brakes. Not so for bicycle riders who MAY be able to signal. If you find yourself needing both hands, though, the law gives you the option of not taking them off the handlebars.

  • 4511.40.  Hand and arm signals. (A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, all signals required by sections 4511.01 to 4511.78 of the Revised Code, when given by hand and arm, shall be given from the left side of the vehicle in the following manner, and such signals shall indicate as follows:
    (1) Left turn, hand and arm extended horizontally;
    (2) Right turn, hand and arm extended upward;
    (3) Stop or decrease speed, hand and arm extended downward.

(B) As an alternative to division (A)(2) of this section, a person operating a bicycle may give a right turn signal by extending the right hand and arm horizontally and to the right side of the bicycle.

Comment: The right-arm turn signal described in (B) above is more easily understood. This change in the law was brought about some years ago and amended in 2019 to incorporate electric bicycles.

  • 4511.52.  Bicycles – issuance of ticket – points not assessed.

(A) Sections 4511.01 to 4511.78, 4511.99, and 4513.01 to 4513.37, of the Revised Code that are applicable to bicycles apply whenever a bicycle is operated upon any highway or upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

(B) Except as provided in division (D) of this section, a bicycle operator who violates any section of the Revised Code described in division (A) of this section that is applicable to bicycles may be issued a ticket, citation, or summons by a law enforcement officer for the violation in the same manner as the operator of a motor vehicle would be cited for the same violation.  A person who commits any such violation while operating a bicycle shall not have any points assessed against the person’s driver’s license, commercial driver’s license, temporary instruction permit, or probationary license under section 4510.036 of the Revised Code.
(C) Except as provided in division (D) of this section, in the case of a violation of any section of the Revised Code described in division (A) of this section by a bicycle operator or by a motor vehicle operator when the trier of fact finds that the violation by the motor vehicle operator endangered the lives of bicycle riders at the time of the violation, the court, notwithstanding any provision of the Revised Code to the contrary, may require the bicycle operator or motor vehicle operator to take and successfully complete a bicycling skills course approved by the court in addition to or in lieu of any penalty otherwise prescribed by the Revised Code for that violation.

Comment: 4511.52(A) Means that the standard traffic rules – the Rules of the Road – apply to bicycle drivers.  The Rules of the Road provide an efficient algorithm of safety. Follow the algorithm and nobody gets hurt. These driving laws allow safe, fast and efficient travel on Ohio’s roadways. 

Riding bicycles on sidewalks or multi-use “bike paths” is moderately safe only if done at slow speeds and extremely carefully.  Ohio continues to add more miles of trails and we are encouraging cities and the state to make those paths something other than  a circle.   There has been a move afoot, for example, to link the Ohio River and  Lake Erie. You can read about the Ohio To Erie Trail here.  Path riding is not covered in this digest. 

Section (B) Means that bicycle violators may be ticketed but will not have “points” assessed against any driver’s license, except for a DWI offense. 

Section (C) allows judges to offer a cycling skills course to violators- be they bicyclists or motor vehicle operators!

  • 4511.54.  Prohibition against attaching bicycles and sleds to vehicles. No person riding upon any bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy vehicle shall attach the same or self to any streetcar, trackless trolley, or vehicle upon a roadway.

I call this the Marty McFly Rule…for obvious reasons…



  • AFRAP- THE KEY OHIO BIKE LAW4511.55.  Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.  Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

Comment: Section 4511.55(A) is one of the most important, and misquoted, bike laws in Ohio.  Many folks [including police officers] will tell cyclists that they are required to ride “as close as possible” to the curb.  That’s NOT what it says or means.  The word “practicable” is an odd word, but a word that clearly incorporates the notion of SAFETY.

The new paragraph (C)- added in the 2006 Better Bicycling Bill – should help reduce this confusion.  There are many conditions where it is much safer to ride near the middle of the lane.  It is not obviously not practicable (practice-able) to ride to the  right when passing on the left, or turning left.  As you ride you will need to avoid objects in the gutter, parked cars, moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface or other hazards. 

The biggest, somewhat secret, change to 4511.55 was to insert a “Too Narrow” exception to the AFRAP rule. This exception allows the exception to apply to just about EVERY lane in Ohio!  Why? Because just about every lane in Ohio is “too narrow” to be shared side-by-side with a vehicle.

In this graphic, Florida bike advocate Keri Cafferty shows, to scale, how trucks impede on the 3 foot cushion of safety that is mandated for cyclists. She only gives 30-40 inches of space for the cyclists on far right side of the 14 foot lane… I’ll suggest that…perhaps… some of us [mysewlf included] may require a tad bit more than that… she also paints the cyclist as riding a traditional upright two-wheeler. Bicycles with 3 or more wheels can have a far wider profile.

Many cycling experts will testify under oath that the BEST PRACTICE for cyclists is to NOT hug the white line, but rather to ride a some feet off the white line and well into the lane.  This lane position makes the bicycle operator far more “conspicuous” to traffic behind and ahead while also keeping some roadway to the right for the rider to use in an emergency.

A cyclist who “hugs the curb” unintentionally invites motorists to pass with unsafe clearance.  I’ve often written that the lane divider, or center lines, are almost like a plate of glass to a motorist passing a cyclist and if the motorist thinks she/he can squeeze in between the cyclist and the divider line, they will do it regularly. Riding a few feet off the white line, or near the middle of a narrow lane helps overtaking motorists realize that they must “break the plane” of glass and use the next lane to pass.

The real purpose of this AFRAP law is to help faster traffic keep zipping along, of course, by moving cyclists over to the right.  However, NO law mandates unsafe operation and the phrase as near right as practicable is highly flexible, varying widely according to conditions.  Positions well away from the edge of the road can be in compliance. The new EXCEPTION TO AFRAP found in the “too narrow” provisions of 4511.55C give cyclists in Ohio a very strong legal position if challenged.

Section 4511.55(B) allows riding two abreast.  As a matter of courtesy, not law, I believe cyclists should avoid unnecessary delay to other traffic.  Please be courteous and “single up” when other drivers wish to pass if such passing is safe and reasonable.  By doing so, you cause the meter measuring Public Opinion to slide ever so slightly in our favor!  But…

As a matter of LAW cyclists have the legal right to ride two abreast and NOT give way – at least until a vehicle starts a passing maneuver.  In State v. Patrick, 153 Ohio Misc.2d 20, Tony Patrick and another rider were riding two abreast when a police officer ordered them to get off the road.  They refused and Tony was ultimately stopped, TASER-ed, beaten and arrested by police.  However, the trial judge dismissed all charges holding, in part, that cyclists have the right to ride two abreast.  The judge in that case, a cyclist himself, stated that while cyclists SHOULD display courtesy to motorists, there is no legal requirement that they give way.

There is no violation if any of the following apply:  (1) If there is no traffic being delayed; (2) If the cyclists are traveling as fast as other traffic; (3) If traffic can reasonably pass by using another lane; (4) If the lane is too narrow or it is otherwise unsafe for passing.

  • 4511.56.  Bicycle signal devices.

(A) Every bicycle when in use at the times specified in section 4513.03 of the Revised Code, shall be equipped with the following:

(1) A lamp mounted on the front of either the bicycle or the operator that shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front and three hundred feet to the sides.  A generator-powered lamp that emits light only when the bicycle is moving may be used to meet this requirement.

(2) A red reflector on the rear that shall be visible from all distances from one hundred feet to six hundred feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle;

(3) A lamp emitting either flashing or steady red light visible from a distance of five hundred feet to the rear shall be used in addition to the red reflector.  If the red lamp performs as a reflector in that it is visible as specified in division (A)(2) of this section, the red lamp may serve as the reflector and a separate reflector is not required.

(B) Additional lamps and reflectors may be used in addition to those required under division (A) of this section, except that red lamps and red reflectors shall not be used on the front of the bicycle and white lamps and white reflectors shall not be used on the rear of the bicycle.

(C) A bicycle may be equipped with a device capable of giving an audible signal, except that a bicycle shall not be equipped with nor shall any person use upon a bicycle any siren or whistle.

(D) Every bicycle shall be equipped with an adequate brake when used on a street or highway.

Comment: An unseen cyclist is in great danger. I’ve been tracking fatal bicycle crashes in Ohio for many years. Each year almost HALF of all cyclists killed are killed in the dark. Many fail to use appropriate lights. The law REQUIRES front & rear lights, and rear reflectors. You should be a BRIGHT and as CONSPICUOUS as possible if  you are riding in the dark, or when weather conditions make it difficult to see.  The reflectors that come with new bikes are grossly inadequate for nighttime visibility.  Always use both a headlight and taillight when you ride in the dark. Today’s new lighting systems are remarkable. You can spend some money and get an unbelievably bright headlight/taillight combo… You can also tape a flashlight to your handlebars, get a red blinkie for the rear, and ride “legal.”

  • 4511.711.  Driving upon sidewalk area. No person shall drive any vehicle, other than a bicycle, upon a sidewalk or sidewalk area except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway.

Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting local authorities from regulating the operation of bicycles within their respective jurisdictions, except that no local authority may require that bicycles be operated on sidewalks.

Comment: Sidewalk riding is controversial.  In the 2006 Better Bicycling Bill we added the highlighted language to this code section.  We felt it was EXTREMELY important to make sure local authorities knew that they could not “ban” bicycle operation by mandating that bicycles only be ridden on the sidewalk.  By the same token, we did not want to prevent communities from banning sidewalk riding.

Sidewalk riding is generally more dangerous than riding on the roadway.  Accident studies show that even low-speed sidewalk riding has about double the accident rate as riding on the road.  The danger increases with speed.  If you ride on the sidewalk, every intersection and even every driveway is a potential collision site.  Motorists crossing your path do not look for conflicting traffic on the sidewalk, especially if you are coming from the “wrong way”.

While there is no statewide ban on sidewalk riding, there are MANY jurisdictions that have some sort of sidewalk ban in place.  In some cities, you are just flat out banned from riding a bike on the sidewalk.  Some ban riding in a defined “business district” and others take the approach of banning riders over a certain age from riding on the sidewalk, while allowing young children to ride. In some cities there are no crosswalk rules, some require you to dismount and walk through crosswalks.

As always, consult local listings for the laws in place for wherever YOU will be riding!



As I pointed out above, Ohio cities have the power to draft their own laws – including traffic laws, and “bike laws.” Historically, we have had problems develop when neighboring cities passed conflicting laws governing bicycle operation.

In 2006, the Ohio Bicycle Federation developed and pushed through the legislature a series of “Bike Law” reforms that, among other things, prohibited local jurisdictions from passing local bike laws that conflict with state law.

I wish I could say “Voila – problem solved” but that’s not the case.

Ohio is a “home rule” state. This means our Ohio Constitution allows local jurisdictions a lot of power in passing their own laws. Whenever there’s a conflict between state and local laws someone may file a lawsuit challenging one or the other. Often the city attorney argues that the city has the power to pass laws which differ from state law. These are long, drawn out and EXPENSIVE law suits requiring a tremendous amount of legal work. These battles are usually fought by large corporations or big special interest groups.

Two recent examples of “home rule” litigation bear this out. In the “Tow Truck Case – City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio” of 2014, the city of Cleveland had rules for tow truck operators and the state had passed a law giving the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio [PUCO] the exclusive power to regulate “for hire motor carriers.” The state included tow trucks in the definition of “for hire motor carriers.” The City of Cleveland sued the State of Ohio, claiming the state law was unconstitutional based on the constitutional “home rule” provisions. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed – holding that a sentence of state law was unconstitutional and allowing the city to regulate tow trucks.

In 2015, “Fracking” laws came under fire. The city of Munroe Falls had long standing laws governing any mining or drilling operations within its boundaries. Later, the state passed laws relative to obtaining mining permits throughout the state. Beck Energy obtained a state permit and started drilling, but was ordered to stop its “fracking” efforts by Munroe Falls based on the city’s mining ordinances. Beck sued…and won. The Supreme Court held that here state law controlled and cities throughout Ohio had no power to control mining within their boundaries.

How do Tow Trucks and Mining play into “Bike Laws,” you ask? Well, let’s say your city decides that it is “too dangerous” for you to ride your bike down Main Street during rush hour, so it passes a bike ban. You point out that state law prohibits bike bans. The city says, under Home Rule we can do what we want…

Perhaps a better example is the one I encountered in one of my cases. The City of Pickerington, near Columbus, had a law which required cyclists to use a sidewalk if one was adjacent to the road. State law clearly says that cyclists cannot be banned from most roads and that cyclists cannot be forced to use the sidewalk. My client was riding on the road. He was rear-ended by an elderly driver and suffered a severe brain injury. Pickerington Police wrote the report and held my client “at fault” for “riding on the road” when there was an adjacent sidewalk. I reached out to the City Attorney and suggested that the city’s ordinance conflicted with state law. I asked if the city really wanted to get into a long legal battle over this issue – he agreed that it did not. The report was amended to reflect that state law trumped the city ordinance and the crash case proceeded. Had the city not been as cooperative I may have had serious problems in pursuing money damages for a client who did absolutely nothing wrong.

In Dayton, Ohio, however, a recent case [which the cyclist LOST] may provide a blueprint for helping cyclists WIN “home rule” cases in the future. In Kane v. City of Dayton Mr. Kane was injured when he was run over by a City of Dayton fire truck. Kane was in the bike lane and the truck operator made a right turn across his path, pinning him under the huge truck. Kane sued the city.

This crash occurred around 30 minutes after sunset. Kane did NOT have a light on his bike. The City argued that Kane was negligent because he violated ORC 4511.56, which requires cyclists to have Lights ON at sunset. Slam dunk?  Not so fast…

Kane pointed out that the City of Dayton had passed a local ordinance which said that cyclists on the road did not have to have Lights ON until ONE HOUR PAST SUNSET!  Slam Dunk? … Not so Fast…

The City of Dayton came back and argued that it LACKED AUTHORITY TO PASS that law… that traffic laws could not be changed by local law and that state law trumped any inconsistent state law…

Guess what… the Court AGREED with the City of Dayton. The Court went through the Home Rule analysis required by the line of Ohio Supreme Court cases discussed above and, when it came out the other side the Court said Yes, Traffic Laws must be uniform and ANY alteration of traffic laws by a city which make that law inconsistent with state law are invalid! So the cyclist “loses” here.

[Don’t worry. The cyclist’s attorney smartly argued that the actual CAUSE of the crash had nothing to do with the cyclist not having a tiny red lighit on the back of his bike 30 minutes after sunset [when it was still “light” out]. Rather he argued that the cause of the crash was the failure of the driver to pay attention. They parties reached a significant six-figure settlement.]

While the cyclist “lost” here, this case is important as it provides a blueprint for cyclists attacking “the Stupid Laws” – mandatory single file laws, bike bans, mandatory “horn” or other equipment laws and the like. The law in Kane v Dayton was beneficial to cyclists but was struck down as being inconsistent. The same result should occur when the Stupid Laws are challenged in court.

So THERE YOU HAVE IT… a brief… OK, 6,700 word… summary of Ohio’s Bike Laws.



== == == == == ==

[1] Steve Magas, Ohio’s Bike Lawyer, is an avid cyclist and Ohio trial lawyer whose law practice has focused on protecting the rights of riders for more than 35 years.  Steve has handled more than 450 “bike cases,” in which cyclists have been hurt or killed.  Steve is a frequent speaker on bike-related legal stuff and has given his “BIKE LAW 101” class for lawyers and judges in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.

Steve also sits on the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Bicycle Federation and regularly publishes articles on the legal aspects of cycling.  Steve co-authored “Bicycling and the Law” with Olympic-cyclist-turned-lawyer, Bob Mionske and was a contributor to “Bicycle Accident Reconstruction & Litigation” by James Green.

Steve’s practice stretches throughout Ohio and he has represented cyclists in every corner of Ohio– from Cincinnati to Cleveland – Columbus to Portsmouth – Bellefontaine to Marietta – Toledo to Youngstown – Mansfield – Springfield – Akron – Canton – Ironton- Findlay – Lorain – Springfield and many more.

Steve continues to blow his trumpet daily and can be heard with a contemporary jazz group, ModernGroove, a classic music venues around Cincinnati.

Printed from: https://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/01/ohios-bike-laws/ .
© 2024.


  • Tricia Kovacs says:

    Excellent article. I’m looking at the municipal codes in central Ohio and will use some of your clarifications when requesting that the codes be changed, especially the one on sidewalk riding.
    Another change that SB 174 proposes is to remove the phrase that the overtaken vehicle must “give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle”.

  • Connie Jones says:

    I enjoy summer and riding my bike as much as anyone. However several times during the summer when driving my car, I will end up behind a bicylist on a road where the posted speed limit is 45 and above. There is no place for the rider to go and I can not pass them safely. Many back roads have cars that go atleast 45 or higher. Or the rider will be trying to ride up a hill and will have 5 or 10 cars behind them because again the car can not pass safely. So my question is are there certain roads where it is illegal for a bicylist to ride such as roads with a certain speed limit.

  • Sean Kirby says:

    Same Question as Connie Jones but more. Licking County Ohio country roads are curved with lots of hills, and the speed limit is 45 mph. I constantly see Cyclists riding in the middle of the road or lane. I also see them doing “Indian rides” were the person in front of the line moves to the left and drops back to the last spot. I came across this today and the car in front of me almost nailed the Cyclists as he moved to the left to drop back. Luckily he slammed on his brakes in time. I thought the Cyclists had to stay as safely to the right as possible. I think these country roads should be off limits to Cyclists due to the blind curves and hills, especially during rush hour.

  • chris says:

    @ Connie Jones It all depends. If the roadway is narrow, or if it hides many blind hills or it’s marked “No Passing Zone” then they are legal. I have seen many motorists pass bikes on blind curves, and had a very close call on a mountain road last year, when an impatient motorist passed on a blind hill and nearly collided with the oncoming traffic. There is no roadway that a cyclist cannot legally be on, except interstate and limited access highways, or roads that prohibit bicycling.

  • Steve:

    I very much enjoyed the article, esp. the historical notes. I will continue to read it again and again until I can recite some of the laws oft confused by motorists. 🙂

    I have a question for you involving the legality of a cyclist RIDING across a Crosswalk. Per the motorist/cyclist incident linked here, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/former_cleveland_browns_player_1.html , can you please explain the rational behind the decision?

    Is it illegal for a cyclist to ride across a crosswalk. My guess is that this is based on the fundemental idea that a cyclist is a vehicle and thus has no right being in the crosswalk.

    Any light you can shed would be most welcomed.


  • Steve Magas says:

    @John – Well, I read the article & thought WOW, that’s nuts. Reggie Langhorne is riding a bicycle “in the crosswalk at the entrance to Westbay Plaza, 30010 Ohio 254.” So I guess he was crossing the street from the sidewalk? So, I dug up the Westlake Municipal Code – what a thing, from a cycling perspective! Westlake has chosen to, shall we say, “highly regulate” bicycles?!

    I haven’t studied these laws the way Fred Meredith has. You can read Fred’s grading of Westlake’s Bike Laws here – http://www.crankmail.com/Fred/sidewalk-laws.html#Westlake

    The sidewalk riding laws are a little bizarre. Section 373.09 says it is “legal” to ride on sidewalks “subject to the following” – (a) – (f). Subsection d says
    (d) Whenever a person is riding a bicycle on a sidewalk, the rider shall dismount and
    shall walk the bicycle across an intersection or a street.

    Certainly discouraging to sidewalk riding, eh? Dismount at every intersection and walk across the street.

    Is this a “legal” legitimate restriction? Yea, probably. Westlake cannot pass “traffic laws” that are “inconsistent” with state traffic laws, but they have the right to legislate bike riding behavior otherwise.
    4511.07 governs the right of local municipalities to regulate traffic. We got an amendment passed in 2006 to the “bicycle” provisions which now states:
    (8) Regulating the operation of bicycles ; provided that no such regulation shall be fundamentally inconsistent with the uniform rules of the road prescribed by this chapter and that no such regulation shall prohibit the use of bicycles on any public street or highway except as provided in section 4511.051 of the Revised Code;

    That second proviso is critical – few states have anything like it. Our goal was to protect bicycle riders from bike bans. Westlake has read that “regulating the operation of bicycles” and stretched it out farther than most cities.

    So, is it illegal for a cyclist to ride across a sidewalk? The answer, in Westlake, is yes. In Willowick? Euclid? Parma? I dunno…

  • Thomas Coyle says:

    Is there or has there been a law in Cleveland Ohio concerning license plates and/or registation of two wheel, human power bicycle’s.

  • Steve Magas says:

    Good question… short answer is I don’t know. I do know that in some Cleveland suburbs there have been “license” and “registration” laws- A good place to look for Bike Laws in the Cleveland area is here –> http://bikelaws.org/ – and here–> http://bikelaws.org/neo-bikelaws.htm
    See, for example, the comments on Elyria…
    ** Elyria http://www.amlegal.com/library/oh/elyria.shtml (Current through December 31, 2009).

    Elyria is not fully in compliance with Ohio Law. Fortunately, the problems are not serious.
    Invalid Ordinances include:
    No person shall operate a bicycle:
    (d) Without both hands upon the handle grips except when necessary to give the required hand and arm signals;
    No operator of a bicycle or skateboard shall be permitted to operate his or her bicycle or skateboard in the Ely Square area or on the sidewalks in the downtown business area from East Bridge Street to West Bridge Street on Broad Street, on Middle Avenue and Court Street from Broad Street to Third Street, East Avenue from Depot Street to Third Street, and West Avenue from Tremont Street to Third Street.<\I>
    Operators of bicycles shall not ride or operate their bicycles within the right of way of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Parkway, being a controlled-access highway, except in emergency situations and at intersections and pedestrian crossings.
    Note: This parkway is not a “Freeway” — there are traffic lights at intersections hence, the above is inconsistent with Ohio Law.
    ORC 4511.07(A)(9) allows local authorities to require bicycle licenses only for residents of the community. It is better to make licensing voluntary.
    No person shall ride or use a bicycle upon any public street in the City unless the same is licensed and registered as hereinafter provided.
    If any bicycle is found within the limits of the City, without a license identification tag, as above set forth, or with a mutilated or altered serial or no serial number stamped on the frame of the bicycle it shall be prima-facie evidence that the bicycle is being operated without proper registration and shall be impounded, as hereinafter set forth.
    There are hereby established in and for the City specific bicycle routes throughout the City, as follows: …
    [Some of the routes involve sidewalks. Sidewalks are known to be dangerous and unsuitable as bicycle facilities unless used with extreme care and low speed.]

  • michael keith says:

    I am a 56 yr old male with no car or drivers license, thinking about purchasing a electric motor assisted bike to get to work and groceries, can you elaborate on any laws concerning this?

  • Steve Magas says:

    I don’t really work on those types of issues. I ride a motorcycle, a clear “motor vehicle,” and ride a bike. “Electric bikes’ have their own code sections
    Here’s a site on “mopeds” – The definitions relate to the power source – “The helper motor may not: have a piston displacement of more than 50 cubic centimeters; produce more than one brake horsepower; and propel the vehicle at a maximum speed greater than 20 mph on a level surface.
    If a vehicle exceeds any one of these criteria, it is legally a motorcycle. Be certain BEFORE you buy. Contact your local Deputy Registrar location, if you have questions.”
    Not sure if that helps…

  • harold beekman says:

    my question and or comment, is why if a bike rider is on a highway with the posted speed greater than 35 is the bike rider not obligated to wear reflective clothing.

  • Steve Magas says:

    The law does not mandate clothing. Helmet laws exist in some jurisdictions, but trying to dictate “reflective” clothing would be very difficult. There are no uniform standards and clothing is as unique… well… as it gets… I recommend being as conspicuous as you can on the road – Not necessarily “reflective” in the daytime but bright and obvious anyway…

  • Greg Schwallie says:

    Steve, I was struck by a car riding my bike in a crosswalk that was open to pedestrian traffic. The driver was making a right turn on red and entered the crosswalk after stopping to make his right turn. Apparently he looked left to see any oncoming traffic but did not look to his right to see me entering the crosswalk while the crosswalk sign said it was open. The only difference between me and a pedestrian in the crosswalk was the rate of speed I was traveling (8 mph vs 4 mph). I was traveling on a designated bike path sidewalk that led directly to the crosswalk that had no stop sign on the bike path because the traffic is controlled by the intersection lights. The crosswalk light said the crosswalk was open so I did not stop to enter it. This happened in Kettering, Ohio. The driver was not sited for hitting me.

  • If a biker on the Bike trail in Ohio accidently runs into a person who is walking on the bike trail, what might happen legally to the bike rider. If the walker is injured, could he take legal action against the bike rider for any injuries incurred by the accident?

  • Steve Magas says:

    Great question. Answer is YES absolutely… BUT… A/ The standard of care on a bike trail is different than a road. If a cyclist on the road hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk then a negligence standard applies…if the cyclist was negligent/careless then the cyclist can be liable. BUT if the cyclist is on a bike trail and hits a pedestrian then the standard of care is not negligence… it goes UP to “Reckless, willful wanton” behavior. The pedestrian has to prove the cyclist acted in a reckless manner, not merely negligent. That’s a difficult standard to meet …
    B/ The Cyclist is protected by a Homeowner Policy! Yes, if you have homeowner’s insurance and someone brings a claim for injuries against you based on a claim that you injured them while riding your bicycle then your H/O policy provides protection, just as if that person slipped and fell on your steps… you have “liability” coverage in your H/O policy …


  1. Bike Life 101: Cyclists’ rights under the law | Yay Bikes!

RSS feed for comments on this post , TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment