Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.755 (2026)
Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780, except as provided in RCW 46.61.190, and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.
(2) Every person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk or crosswalk must be granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to a pedestrian by this chapter.
Notes:
Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule—IRLJ 6.2.
Effective date—2020 c 66: See note following RCW 46.61.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1975–2016 · leading case: Pudmaroff v. Allen, 977 P.2d 574 (Wash. 1999).
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 977 P.2d 574 (Wash. 1999). “And as Allen observes, RCW 46.61.755 gives "[e]very person riding a bicycle upon a roadway" the rights and duties of "the driver of a vehicle[.”
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 138 Wash. 2d 55 (Wash. 1999). “And as Allen observes, RCW 46.61.755 gives “[e]very person riding a bicycle upon a roadway” the rights and duties of “the driver of a vehicle[.”
Crawford v. Miller, 566 P.2d 1264 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “Miller contends that at the time of the accident, Kelley Ann was a bicyclist subject to the requirements of the motor vehicle code, RCW 46.61.755; the Crawfords contend that she was a pedestrian.”
Pudmaroff v. Allen, 951 P.2d 335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” 6 Since a crosswalk was, and still is, defined as a “portion of the roadway,” 7 the Crawford court’s holding reflects an implicit determination that a crosswalk is not a roadway for purposes of RCW 46.61.755, which requires bicyclists on a roadway to observe the rules for…”
Pamela O'neill, V The City Of Port Orchard, 375 P.3d 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Further, bicycles are subject to the same traffic laws as motorists and other vehicles when traveling on public roadways: Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a…”
City of Montesano v. Wells, 902 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Moreover, because bicyclists are required to abide by the rules of the road (see RCW 46.61.755), police may cite any person riding in an unsafe manner, whether due to intoxication or not.”
Borromeo v. Shea, 156 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “5 ¶10 The relevant statutes are RCW 46.61.755 and RCW 46.61.770. RCW 46.61.”
Bauman v. Crawford, 685 P.2d 1104 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “RCW 46.61.755. We recognize that riding a bicycle on private property or a playground may be a traditional childhood activity which is not inherently dangerous.”
Merrick v. Stansbury, 533 P.2d 136 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “RCW 46.61.755. The general rule governing traffic at intersections is stated in RCW 46.”
State of Washington v. Guadalupe Arousa, Jr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Here, two valid, independent reasons for the stop existed: bicycling against traffic under RCW 46.61.755; and investigating a nearby rape.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.755(1) — 1 case
Pamela O'neill, V The City Of Port Orchard, 375 P.3d 709 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Further, bicycles are subject to the same traffic laws as motorists and other vehicles when traveling on public roadways: Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a…”
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.