Below are comments from the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) on the RRTAC July 19 agenda items relating to the Santa Ana River Trail (SART):

1. First and foremost, we applaud the county’s efforts in reaching out to and working with the cycling community to come up with a SART detour well in advance of the widening of the 91 freeway.  Furthermore, we appreciate the county’s commitment to come with a long term solution that will most likely be more attractive than the original concept of a bikeway adjacent to the freeway.

2. When cyclist access to State Route 91 was severed due to conversion to a freeway in the 1970s, the section of the SART between Gypsum Canyon and Green River was constructed to provide an alternate transportational route for cyclists in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 888. This section reads as follows:

888.  The department shall not construct a state highway as a freeway that will result in the severance or destruction of an existing major route for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless it provides a reasonable, safe, and convenient alternate route or such a route exists.

Since this section of the SART replaced 24/7 road access, 24/7 access MUST be preserved on this section of the SART, irrespective of other policies regulating bikeway hours of operation.  Currently there are posted detour signs posted with limited hours, which is unacceptable.

3. Several signs with a cyclist speed limit of 10 mph have been appearing at various entrances of the SART. Cyclist speed on bikeways is governed under county ordinance as follows:

Sec. 2-5-43. – Bicycles. Unsafe Operation. No person shall operate a bicycle in any manner that endangers any person or animal or at a speed that is greater than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for other users and the surface, width, and grade of the road or trail, and in no event in excess of ten (10) miles per hour, unless a greater speed is posted.

While a 10 mph speed limit might not be unreasonable in a park or beach setting, it is unnecessarily restrictive on a facility such as the SART, where there are many portions with excellent sightlines where cyclists can travel much faster without endangering themselves or other users. We suggest that the county remove the latter clause in 2-5-43 setting a speed limit. The remainder of the ordinance text already sufficiently addresses the need for cyclists to reduce speed if necessary due to trail conditions and the presence of other users.

In any event, Section 2-5-43 is under “Division 5 – Parks, Beaches, and Recreational Areas” in the county code and only applies to those areas.  This speed limit ordinance should not apply to the section of the SART between Gypsum Canyon and Green River, due to its primary purpose as a transportation facility as it was constructed under the provisions of Streets and Highways Code 888.

4. The SART is popular with bicycle commuters, and daylight-only operating hours would restrict the SART’s usefulness as a commuting facility.  Unlike a wilderness park where a nighttime closure is often needed for the sake of the wildlife, we see no such reason for such a restriction on the SART.

5. Finally, there was a car show at Canyon RV Park at Gypsum Canyon this past Sunday which encroached on the SART passing through that area. Cars were lined up along the SART, with the SART itself used as the walkway for viewing of the cars.  Furthermore, the cars in the show were driving on the SART to enter and exit the area.  We have photos available upon request.

The video clip below is of a cyclist making a left turn from a residential collector onto a six lane arterial. Although it’s a bit difficult to see in the video due to the wide angle lens, the cyclist’s position when the light turns green for traffic on the arterial is in the middle of the number two lane.  The cyclist reaches the bike lane on the other side at about 12 seconds after receiving the green.

California law requires motorists to merge into a bike lane before turning right.  This is consistent with destination positioning traffic principles (right turning traffic turns from the rightmost part of the roadway) and thereby minimizes the chance of a “right hook” crash, where a right turning motorist turns across the path of a cyclist proceeding straight.

A few years ago, Oregon was dealing with conflicting laws – one that required motorists to make right turns from the edge of the roadway, and yet another required them to stay out of bike lanes.  The police proposed a California-style law which would require motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning.  That did not gain traction, and so the net result in Oregon is that motorists are required to turn across bike lanes when turning right.  http://bikeportland.org/2006/11/29/police-propose-bike-lane-law-change/

Oregon has been moving in the direction of installing ”bike boxes” to address the right hook problem.  Here is an animation that shows they don’t work as intended in all situations: http://www.commuteorlando.com/ontheroad/animations/bikebox/

As the Mercury News article illustrates, there is often confusion among motorists and cyclists about the California law regarding motorist right turns and bike lanes.  In my (Brian’s) view, part of the confusion is that motorists are being asked to occupy two lanes at once (the bike lane and part of the travel lane) – which runs counter to the concept we’ve all learned about only being in one lane at a time. But what other solution is there when bike lanes are striped to the right of lanes where motorists may turn right? Since there seems to be little desire to drop the bike lane stripe before intersections (even though the design standards allow it), the California law appears to be the best way to address the potential conflicts.

See also this post: http://www.cabobike.org/2009/11/08/problems-with-bike-lanes-striped-solid-to-the-intersection/

While Irvine has taken advantage of starting with a “clean slate” to build a network of on-street bike lanes and off-street bike paths, this alone does not make a community friendly to cyclists, and CABO believes that more work is needed before Irvine should be given a BFC award.

CABO’s detailed comments are available here:
http://www.cabobike.org/files/CABO_Comments_Irvine_BFC_Application_Spring_2009.pdf

The on-line survey is here – responses are due by Friday, April 17, 2009:
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB228ZU4XDSA2

The BFC scoring criteria are available here:
http://www.cabobike.org/files/BFC_Local_Review_Scoring_Guidelines_2009.pdf

Irvine’s BFC application:
http://www.cabobike.org/files/Irvine_CA_BFC_App_Spring_2009.pdf

I ask that you remind your drivers that (with minor exceptions) bicyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles.  Although the roadway configuration above is uncommon in [my city removed], your drivers should be aware that there are also other situations where they may see bicyclists riding legally in travel lanes – such as avoiding hazards in bike lanes, moving to and using left turn pockets, and avoiding potential conflicts with right turning traffic at intersections and driveways.

The text of CVC 21202 is available here: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm. A discussion regarding the applicability of this law is here:  http://www.cvcbike.org/club/bikelaw.htm

21202.  (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

If the cyclist’s appeal is successful, justification is needed in order to get the decision published.  We need examples where other cyclists may have been unfairly cited – or even if stopped, delayed or harassed in any way by a law enforcement officer – for allegedly violating CVC 21202.  Please post here and/or contact us at cabobike -at- cabobike -dot- org as appropriate.

The gist of the presentation was this:

• The California MUTCD prohibits raised barriers or raised pavement markers between travel lanes and bike lanes. This is to avoid trapping cyclists when they need to leave the bike lane to make left turns, to pass another cyclist, to avoid debris, or to avoid conflicts with turning traffic.
• It is illegal to cross a gore striped area two feet or wider. Therefore, the gore area has the same effect as a physical barrier between the travel lanes and bike lanes.
• It is CABO’s position that gore separated bike lanes violate the intent of the provision prohibiting barriers between travel lanes and bike lanes. However, for clarity, CABO requested that the appropriate wording be added to specifically prohibit gore separated bike lanes.