Does CVC 22400 ban bikes from highways?

Ohio has a similar law, and a bicyclist was cited for riding on the roadway. He was convicted in lower court and appealed. The appeals court overturned his conviction, saying that applying the law would be tantamount to prohibiting bicyclists from the state's streets and highways, which was clearly not the intent of the Legislature (Trotwood v Selz).

The same principle applies in California. Since CVC 21200 explicitly says that bicyclists riding on the roadway have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, it would not make sense to say that it is a violation to ride in the roadway.

Alan Wachtel and I confirmed this during a meeting with the CHP earlier this year. A bicyclist using the right lane on a multi-lane highway would not be guilty of a violation of CVC 22400.

No, CVC 22400 does not prohibit bicyclists from riding on highways.

First, our right to travel on roadways stems from 21200.

Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

Note that last part: "... except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application."

22400 is clearly meant to apply to those traveling "so slowly as to impede" despite being able to go faster. This is made clear by the clause, "unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.". So, by its very nature, 22400 cannot apply to bicyclists who are going as fast as they reasonably can.

That should be enough. Further, since bicyclists can travel 50 mph and faster if the grade is sufficiently steep downhill, the reason the "reduced speed is necessary" and roads that are not that steep downhill is, arguably, "because of a grade".

Finally, the basic legal question of whether such laws can apply to someone who simply cannot travel any faster (including farm vehicle operators, horse and buggy operators, as well as bicyclists) has been addressed in the appellate courts of at least Ohio and Georgia. While those decisions do not having binding precedent in California, they do have persuasive precedent. In fact, the decision in Ohio (google Trotwood v. Selz), which was about a bicyclist, was based on the Georgia decision (Lott v Smith), which was about a combine operator. In both cases the courts found that applying such laws to drivers of slow moving vehicles (including bicyclists) would be tantamount to prohibiting them from operating on the highway, which was clearly not the legislative intent (had it been, they would have been explicit about that); therefore, these laws could not apply to anyone who was legally allowed to travel on the highway and is traveling about as fast as is reasonably possible.

Bob Mionske covers this topic in more detail in "Bicycling & The Law", which I highly recommend to anyone who bicycles in traffic.

Serge

As a matter of fact, we aren't even banned from all freeways (if by highways he meant roads, which is the definition of highway).

We are allowed on freeways unless prohibited by signage; this is why at times you can find "Bikes Must Exit" signs, as you will on North I-680 near Sunol, North CA-17 at the CA-9 exit, and other places.

"Highway" is common slang for "freeway". Is that what she meant?