Can local ordinances override state bicycle traffic laws? Hansen v. Eyre Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Hansen v. Eyre clarifies the relationship between municipal bicycle ordinances and state traffic laws, holding that local ordinances cannot authorize conduct prohibited by state statute.

Background and Facts

Tyler Hansen was riding his bicycle eastbound on 200 South in Salt Lake City, traveling against traffic in a marked bicycle lane on the left side of the road. Amanda Eyre, driving a van, turned right into the bicycle lane and collided with Hansen, causing substantial injuries. Hansen filed suit and moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Salt Lake City Code section 12.80.070 justified his actions by allowing bicycle operation “within a marked bicycle lane” even on the left side of the street.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three primary issues: (1) whether the appellate court’s decision violated Hansen’s due process rights by retroactively invalidating the ordinance, (2) whether the Salt Lake City ordinance conflicted with state law, and (3) whether Salt Lake City should have been joined as a party when invalidating the ordinance.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court rejected Hansen’s due process claim, noting that due process protections apply when criminal sanctions might deprive someone of liberty or property, not in civil tort proceedings. On the central issue, the court applied the established rule that “where a city ordinance is in conflict with a state statute, the ordinance is invalid at its inception.” Utah Code section 41-6-87(1) requires bicyclists to “ride as near as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway,” with limited exceptions not applicable here. Since the city ordinance permitted what state law prohibited—riding against traffic even in marked bicycle lanes—it conflicted with state law and was invalid.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the primacy of state law over conflicting municipal ordinances. The court’s conflict test—whether the ordinance “permits or licenses that which the statute forbids”—provides clear guidance for analyzing similar disputes. Practitioners should note that the court directed no negligence per se instruction be given on remand, recognizing that the existence of the conflicting ordinance, though invalid, complicated the negligence analysis.