What a traffic ticket proves: the rules of the road for people who are not in a car

Minnesota's traffic code says in terms that breaking it is not negligence per se. That one sentence changes what a citation, a crosswalk, and a bicycle's road position are worth in an injury claim — and the rules themselves say less than most people think.

An injury claim arising from a collision between a car and a person on foot or on a bicycle almost always ends up as an argument about a rule of the road. Somebody stepped off a curb, or rode outside a bike lane, or turned across a shoulder, and the adjuster on the other end of the phone treats the rule as though it settles the case. Minnesota’s traffic code contains a sentence that says it does not, and the sentence is easy to miss because it is in the last section of the chapter rather than the first.

The sentence at the end of the chapter

Minn. Stat. § 169.96 is two paragraphs long. The second one is the operative half:

(b) In all civil actions, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, by either or any of the parties to such action or actions shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only.

Every word in that sentence is doing work. It applies “In all civil actions,” so it is not limited to any particular kind of claim. It applies to “any of the provisions of this chapter,” so it covers the crosswalk rules, the bicycle rules, the passing rules, the speed rules, and everything else in chapter 169. It applies “by either or any of the parties,” so it cuts symmetrically — a driver’s violation is prima facie evidence against the driver on exactly the same terms. And it says what a violation is not before it says what it is.

The practical consequence is that a citation, or an admitted violation, moves the case rather than deciding it. What it moves it toward is the apportionment machinery in Minn. Stat. § 604.01, which is set out in the comparative fault guide: fault is compared, a claimant’s recovery is reduced in proportion, and a claim is barred only where the claimant’s fault is greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought.

What the pedestrian rules actually say

Minn. Stat. § 169.21 is short, and it is more favourable to a person on foot than its reputation.

Subdivision 2(a) states the driver’s obligation where there is no signal, and it is a stop rather than a yield: “the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk.” The duty then persists — “The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped.” The pedestrian’s counterpart limitation is in the same paragraph: “No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

The phrase to notice is “at an intersection with no marked crosswalk,” which appears in all three of those sentences. The rule is not confined to painted crosswalks.

Subdivision 2(b) addresses the collision pattern in which a second driver kills someone the first driver had already stopped for: “When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.”

Subdivision 3 collects the pedestrian’s own duties. Outside a crosswalk or an unmarked intersection crossing, the pedestrian yields to all vehicles. Where a tunnel or overhead crossing has been provided, the pedestrian using the roadway instead yields. “Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.” And subdivision 5 addresses the walk home where there is no sidewalk: pedestrians “shall, when practicable, walk or move on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder giving way to oncoming traffic,” and where sidewalks are provided and are accessible and usable, walking along an adjacent roadway is unlawful.

Subdivision 3(d) is the one that survives all of it. It opens with “Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section,” and it requires every driver to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian on any roadway, and to “give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.” Two categories of person get that heightened attention by name.

What the bicycle rules actually say

Minn. Stat. § 169.222, subd. 1(a) sets the baseline in one sentence: “Every person operating a bicycle has all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter, except in respect to those provisions in this chapter relating expressly to bicycles and in respect to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to bicycles.” The sentence closes by extending itself: “This subdivision applies to a bicycle operating on the shoulder of a roadway.”

Paragraph (b) then switches the rulebook depending on where the rider is: “A person lawfully operating a bicycle (1) on a sidewalk, or (2) across a roadway or shoulder while using a crosswalk has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.” A rider in a crosswalk is being measured against § 169.21, not against the vehicle rules.

Road position is the most frequently misdescribed rule in the section. Subdivision 4(a) requires a rider on a road to “ride as close to the right-hand curb or edge of the road as the bicycle operator determines is safe,” and then removes the requirement entirely in five situations: overtaking and passing another vehicle going the same way; preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; where it is “reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow-width lanes”; operating on a shoulder or in a bicycle lane; and operating in a right-hand turn lane before entering an intersection.

Two further provisions in the same section cut against what a driver, or an adjuster reading a police report, is likely to assume. Subdivision 4(f) provides that “Notwithstanding section 169.06, subdivision 4, a bicycle operator may cross an intersection proceeding from the leftmost one-third of a dedicated right-hand turn lane without turning right.” And subdivision 4a changes what a stop sign requires of a rider:

(b) A bicycle operator who approaches a stop sign must slow to a speed that allows for stopping before entering the intersection or the nearest crosswalk. Notwithstanding subdivision 1 and section 169.06, subdivision 4, if there is not a vehicle in the vicinity, the operator may make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.

That permission is bounded twice. Subdivision 4a(a) defines “in the vicinity” as “located in an intersection or approaching an intersection in a manner that constitutes a hazard of collision during the time that a bicycle operator would occupy the intersection.” And paragraph (c) preserves everything else: “Nothing in this subdivision alters the right-of-way requirements under section 169.20.”

Riding on a sidewalk carries its own duties under subdivision 4(d). The rider “must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and give an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing any pedestrian,” must not ride on a sidewalk within a business district unless local authorities permit it, and is subject to any local prohibition on sidewalk or crosswalk riding.

The passing rule, and the equipment rules

Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 3(3) fixes a floor rather than a standard: the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual going the same direction on the roadway “shall leave a safe distance, but in no case less than three feet clearance, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.” A safe distance may be more than three feet; it may not be less.

On a bikeway rather than a roadway, § 169.222, subd. 4(e) imposes the parallel duty on whoever is doing the overtaking, bicycle or otherwise, and adds an audible warning to it.

Lighting is where a night collision case is often fought. Minn. Stat. § 169.222, subd. 6(a) requires a bicycle operated at nighttime to have “a lamp which emits a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front” and an approved red rear reflector “visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear,” with a bicycle carrying front and rear lamps visible from 500 feet deemed to comply. Paragraph (b) adds a separate reflective-surface requirement whenever there is not sufficient light to render persons and vehicles clearly discernible at 500 feet. These are chapter 169 provisions, so § 169.96(b) applies to them the same way it applies to everything else: a rider without a lamp has produced prima facie evidence of negligence, not a verdict.

Headgear, and where the requirement is and is not

Chapter 169 does not require a person operating a bicycle to wear a helmet. The provisions in the chapter that do require protective headgear are elsewhere and are addressed to other machines: Minn. Stat. § 169.974, subd. 4(a) provides that “No person under the age of 18 shall operate or ride a motorcycle on the streets and highways of this state without wearing protective headgear that complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety”; Minn. Stat. § 169.223, subd. 1 applies § 169.974 to motorized bicycles with adjustments, including that “protective headgear is not required for operators 18 years of age or older”; and Minn. Stat. § 169.225, subd. 4 provides that “No person under the age of 18 years may operate a motorized foot scooter without wearing properly fitted and fastened protective headgear that complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety.” Which of those machines a given vehicle is turns on the definitions discussed in the pedestrian and cyclist coverage guide.

The evidence rule that goes the other way

One category of conduct is not merely reduced from negligence per se to evidence — it is kept out altogether. Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a):

Except as provided in paragraph (b), proof of the use or failure to use seat belts or a child passenger restraint system as described in subdivision 4a, or proof of the installation or failure of installation of seat belts or a child passenger restraint system as described in subdivision 4a is not admissible in evidence in any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage resulting from the use or operation of any motor vehicle.

The exception in paragraph (b) is narrow and self-limiting: the bar “does not affect the right of a person to bring an action for damages arising out of an incident that involves a defectively designed, manufactured, installed, or operating seat belt or child passenger restraint system,” and in that kind of action the evidence comes in.

What this page is not

It sets out what chapter 169 says about pedestrians, bicycles, passing distance, and lighting, and what Minn. Stat. § 169.96(b) makes a violation worth in a civil case. It does not assess whether anyone violated any of these rules, how a factfinder would weigh a violation that occurred, or what a comparison of fault would produce in a particular collision. Prima facie evidence is evidence, and what a factfinder does with it is not something a page can predict.