Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 4511
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.55 (2026)

Operating bicycles, electric bicycles, and motorcycles on roadway

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 8, 2019
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 250 (GA 132), House Bill 95 (GA 132)
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Every person operating a bicycle or electric 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, electric 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, electric bicycles, or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle or electric 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 or electric bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(D) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

If the offender commits the offense while distracted and the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense, the offender is subject to the additional fine established under section 4511.991 of the Revised Code.

The Legislative Service Commission presents the text of this section as a composite of the section as amended by multiple acts of the General Assembly. This presentation recognizes the principle stated in R.C. 1.52(B) that amendments are to be harmonized if reasonably capable of simultaneous operation.

Last updated February 23, 2022 at 11:50 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Cupp v. Kudla, 822 N.E.2d 392 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cupp v. Kudla, 822 N.E.2d 392 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2004). · cites it 3× “*733 {¶ 17} As both sides correctly note, the operation of a bicycle upon a state highway is governed by R.C. 4511.55(A). This statute provides that any person riding a bicycle “upon a roadway” is required to stay “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying…”
Figueroa v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 2021-Ohio-2268. “We need not address issues related to Figueroa’s conduct yet because first we must assess whether any negligence occurred on the part of GCRTA.”
City of Trotwood v. Selz, 746 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2000). · cites it 2× “Although Selz may have been in violation of R.C. 4511.55(A), requiring a bicyclist to travel as far as practicable on the right side of the roadway, he was not charged with a violation of that statute.”
State v. Tudor, 2019-Ohio-24, 118 N.E.3d 297. “R.C. 4511.55. {¶19} Mr. Tudor may have been an inconvenience to motorists behind him, but he posed no threat to the safety of any person or property.”
McFarland v. Gillespie, 2019-Ohio-1050. · cites it 3× “28 and R.C. 4511.55 must be looked at in conjunction to determine liability.”
State v. Roberts, 2012-Ohio-4715. “{¶28} As R.C. 4511.55(A) makes clear, a cyclist may pass other traffic on the right, provided the cyclist does so while exercising due care.”
State v. Hayes, 2024-Ohio-5545. · cites it 4× “upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable .”
Falck v. Proos, 455 N.E.2d 1020 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1982). “Defendant relies on R.C. 4511.55(A), which provides: “Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the road way as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle * *…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.55(A): 6 cases
Cupp v. Kudla, 822 N.E.2d 392 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2004). “*733 {¶ 17} As both sides correctly note, the operation of a bicycle upon a state highway is governed by R.C. 4511.55(A). This statute provides that any person riding a bicycle “upon a roadway” is required to stay “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying…”
Figueroa v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 2021-Ohio-2268. “We need not address issues related to Figueroa’s conduct yet because first we must assess whether any negligence occurred on the part of GCRTA.”
City of Trotwood v. Selz, 746 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2000). “Although Selz may have been in violation of R.C. 4511.55(A), requiring a bicyclist to travel as far as practicable on the right side of the roadway, he was not charged with a violation of that statute.”
State v. Roberts, 2012-Ohio-4715. “{¶28} As R.C. 4511.55(A) makes clear, a cyclist may pass other traffic on the right, provided the cyclist does so while exercising due care.”
Falck v. Proos, 455 N.E.2d 1020 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1982). “Defendant relies on R.C. 4511.55(A), which provides: “Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the road way as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle * *…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.55(B): 1 case
McFarland v. Gillespie, 2019-Ohio-1050. “28 and R.C. 4511.55 must be looked at in conjunction to determine liability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.