At the risk of becoming a pariah among local cycling advocates, I have to respectfully disagree with efforts to support the enactment of the “Idaho law” in California. And let me preface my comments by explaining that I am a daily cyclist (for over 40 years) who always stops at stop signs and always waits for the green light. However, I do admit that at stop signs I will often slow VERY perceptibly, almost to a full stop, before entering the intersection. While I know this violates the letter of the law, I also know that almost no motorists come to complete stops at stop signs unless there is cross traffic to wait for. I think this is acceptable, and apparently so does law enforcement, because virtually all of us who drive do the same – often in full view of traffic officers – and are never stopped for it. Cyclists need not be held to a higher standard than motorists in this situation. It’s akin to driving 70 mph when the posted limit is 65 mph. That minor “indiscretion” is clearly acceptable to virtually every police officer, judge and jury. Same goes with the stop sign situation. I know that some cyclists have been stopped and cited by police for not putting a foot down to the pavement at a stop sign, but those rare instances are the actions of abusive or ignorant officers and I don’t believe they are such common occurrences to warrant a “solution” like the Idaho law.

The main reasons that such a law is often advocated by some cyclists are these: (1) it would decriminalize existing, common behavior among many cyclists, (2) cyclists would save energy by not having to stop and start at every stop sign, and (3) cyclists would save time by not having to wait for the green light at every encounter with a red light. The latter two reasons are tempting to some because the energy saved is our own – fatigue is reduced or at least delayed; and saving time when engaging in a travel mode that is not particularly fast as compared with motorized transportation may be enticing.

The extent that stopping is a burden to cyclists is up to the individual. I’ve never considered it to be a problem. If I wasn’t fit enough to start and stop multiple times when riding, perhaps I shouldn’t be on a pedal-bike. And if the delay of waiting for a green light slows me down too much, maybe I should consider a faster mode. Most of us don’t choose cycling because it’s the quickest way from point A to B.

All that being said, I do think a good argument can be made for replacing many stop signs with yield signs signalized intersections with roundabouts.

It has also been argued by some that the Idaho law would create more predictable cyclist behavior. I think that’s illogical. At present when I observe a cyclist approaching a stop sign, I may be unsure what he is going to do. How would that be any different under the new law? I still wouldn’t know what he’d do. In fact, I’d be less sure. I guess I could just predict that whatever he did, he’d be within the law (assuming he really treated a stop sign as a yield sign and behaved accordingly – remember, there are legal and illegal ways to treat a yield sign).

And, where there is a reasonable level of traffic enforcement for all modes (e.g. when one of the Davis bicycle officers is patrolling downtown Davis), it’s pretty easy to predict behavior by most cyclists.

Here’s a scenario to consider: a cyclist approaches a red light (under the Idaho law). She stops, looks both ways, and decides to cross or turn left on the red light. Unbeknownst to her, motor traffic on her left or across the intersection has just gotten a green left turn arrow. Conflict (or worse) occurs. She wasn’t aware of that because many such signals are not visible to the cross traffic because there’s no reason for them to be when all traffic is supposed to obey them according to the same black and white rules.  I suppose you could argue that a prudent cyclist would not cross on the red light under the circumstance where there was cross traffic waiting to turn left across her path. But how many of us would make that determination under those circumstances?

My observation of the “judgment” used by many cyclists when choosing to ignore stop signs or red lights is that they often make very poor and dangerous decisions. Making such behavior “legal” won’t reduce the danger to them or others.

Another point to consider: the maturity and traffic experience to make the right decision to treat a stop as a yield or a red light as a stop sign safely is certainly within the grasp of many of us. However, as noted above, not every adult has such maturity, experience or good judgment. Most importantly – ANYONE, no matter what age and what level of experience, can ride a bike on public streets. Do you think that the typical 8-year old can make such decisions safely? I can imagine many kids emulating the behavior of adult cyclists under such a law and following careless cyclists into intersections under conditions in which the child will be in significantly more danger than the adult (visibility, speed, skill to avoid a collision, etc.). A uniform, unambiguous set of laws that apply to all road users is easier for a child to understand.

Sometimes the argument is made that cyclists should get these advantages because they’re doing the “right thing” environmentally and such. One could also argue that motorists could save a lot of fuel, money and reduce emissions if they could do the same. The “bike advocate” counters that allowing motorists to behave in this manner is too dangerous because of the potentially significant injuries, even fatalities, which might ensue.

So, if cyclists are allowed to engage in what may be riskier behavior (treating stops as yields, red lights as stop signs), the worst case scenario is that a few more cyclists may get hurt, but such incidents are only their own fault. How ridiculous is that? Imagine the reaction of the motorist who kills a cyclist, especially a child, who uses poor judgment under this law? And consider the costs to society of any serious injury. Furthermore, in a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the pedestrian may be more likely to suffer serious injury. Will cyclists properly yield to pedestrians when “running” red lights and stop signs?

In conclusion, I think cycling advocates should be very cautious about pursuing such a change in the California Vehicle Code. It runs counter to the principles of vehicular cycling and also violates one of the primary elements of traffic safety: predictability. It would be better if cyclists used their energy and resources to advocate for more education for cyclists and motorists, pushed for more rational policies about the installation of stop signs and traffic signals when yield signs and roundabouts may be the safer alternatives, and encouraged more enforcement by police officers better informed about traffic law as it pertains to cyclists. Is it REALLY all that onerous to stop at stop signs and red lights?

Below is a report on that meeting, but first a little background on how the meeting came about:

In January 2008, Bob Shanteau was appointed as the bicyclist representative of the AB 1581 Subcommittee to the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, which was tasked with developing language to be included in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

AB 1581, authored by Assemblymember Jean Fuller and sponsored by ABATE, the statewide motorcyclist group, and the California Bicycle Coalition, required motorcycle and bicycle detection at new and modified traffic actuated signals, but to take effect only after Caltrans had adopted standards and guidelines for motorcycle/bicycle detection and related signal timing. At the Subcommittee’s first meeting early that year Bob Shanteau met James Lombardo, who, as lobbyist for the statewide motorcyclist group ABATE, was largely responsible for the passage of AB 1581. He and Bob worked closely together as the Subcommittee tried to develop appropriate language for the CA MUTCD, but by late 2008 they had run into problems with Caltrans, the CHP and local agencies on enforcement, engineering, education, legislation, etc.

Bob thought back to the meetings of the Statewide Bicycle Committee that he attended in 1974 when he was president of the Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Association (now the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition), which led to the 1975-76 legislation that revised the Vehicle Code and the Streets and Highways Code. He recalled that the Statewide Bicycle Committee had been created by Senate Concurrent Resolution 47 in 1973, authored by Senator Pro Tem James Mills. Bob and James figured that a new committee would be a good way to work out the problems they were seeing.

During the February 2009 CABO Board meeting, Bob was appointed as Transportation Engineering Liaison for CABO. At the same meeting, he recommended that CABO find a legislator to carry a resolution to create the new committee. He also recommended hiring a lobbyist to represent CABO while the resolution wound its way through the legislature. The CABO Board approved both recommendations and hired James Lombardo as its lobbyist. Alan Wachtel, CABO’s Legislative Liaison, was to work with James in getting a resolution for a new statewide bicycle committee through the legislature. One of the first tasks was to find a legislator to carry the resolution.

CABO President Jim Baross then contacted longtime friend Christine Kehoe, his State Senator and Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to ask her to carry the resolution. She recommended that a stakeholders task force be formed instead. James and Jim then worked with Senator Kehoe’s staff through the rest of 2009 to schedule an initial meeting, but with the state budget occupying the Legislature, it took most of the year. Everything finally came together in December for a meeting to take place in Senator Kehoe’s office on January 6, 2010.

***
Attending the meeting on 1/6/2010 in Senator Kehoe’s office were:
Senator Christine Kehoe
Senator Kehoe’s aide Gil Topete
CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow
CHP legislative aide Capt. Avery Browne
Caltrans Director Randy Iwasaki
Caltrans Legislative Liaison Ted Link-Oberstar
CABO President Jim Baross
CABO Legislative Liaison Alan Wachtel
CABO Transportation Engineering Liaison Bob Shanteau
CABO lobbyist James Lombardo
California Peace Officers’ Association Government Relations Manager John Lovell
California State Sheriffs’ Association legislative representative Danielle Higgs
Senate Transportation Committee consultant Jennifer Gress

Senator Kehoe opened the meeting and asked for self introductions. She then called on Jim Baross.

Jim told about Senate Concurrent Resolution 47 in 1973 that resulted in the Statewide Bicycle Committee, which met during 1974 and the legislation that was considered and passed during the 1975-76 legislative session. He said that some recommendations of the SCR 47 Committee had not been implemented and that some things had changed since then. He went over the reasons why more people are choosing to bicycle now. He said that we support increasing safe, courteous and lawful bicycling.

Senator Kehoe agreed with the reasons to encourage bicycling, including reduction of greenhouse gases and health.

Jim Baross then described how the California Vehicle Code was being interpreted by police and judges as requiring bicyclists to get out of the way of cars, which is in conflict to the way that the League of American Bicyclists teaches bicyclists how to ride on the roads, which is, when necessary for personal safety, to ride in the way of cars. He used a story from an episode of Seinfeld to illustrate his point, where George is driving a car and hits and kills a pigeon. His passenger is alarmed, but George explains, “We have a deal with pigeons. We let them use the streets as long as they stay out of our way. That pigeon broke the deal.”

Jim went on to describe how the Vehicle Code is being interpreted differently around the State and how levels of enforcement differ. He described a lack of uniformity of both traffic control devices and designs. Public agencies are introducing innovative approaches to accommodate bicyclists without going through any approval process at the state level. He requested help on this point. Also, bicyclists are requesting representation on the California Traffic Control Devices.

Randy Iwasaki said that he agreed with the need for uniformity with standards and that revisions were needed, but that each agency can have its own highway design standards.

Bob Shanteau pointed out that part of the 1975-76 legislative package included a provision in the Streets and Highways Code saying that the Caltrans Highway Design Manual was mandatory for local agencies on bikeways and on roads on which bicycle travel was permitted.

Senator Kehoe said she supported adding bicyclist representation to the CTCDC would be a good thing and that avoiding a bill to do so would be a good thing.

Randy Iwasaki wanted to make sure that those present were aware of DD-64-R1 that he had signed when he was still Deputy Director. He said that the goal was to make sure that bicyclists and motor vehicles can coexist peacefully, which was a shock to many of the engineers at Caltrans.

Senator Kehoe expressed concern about differing interpretations of the Vehicle Code and different levels of enforcement around the State.

Joe Farrow said that safety was of primary importance to the CHP. He said that for consistency of enforcement that CHP would work with the police chiefs and sheriffs. He said that the CHP recognizes that any law applicable to motor vehicles is also applicable to bicyclists. He said that the CHP only issued 6 citations last year for bicyclists riding in the middle of a lane. When a bicyclist is an impediment, their officers more commonly ask the bicyclist to move to the right. Currently, CHP interprets the law as requiring bicyclists to ride to the right, so he said there is a need to talk. He described CHP’s involvement in the Strategic Highway Safety Program, which also involves the California Office of Traffic Safety, Caltrans, and bicyclists. He said that the CHP sends advisory notices to the police chiefs and the sheriffs, and most follow CHP advice.

John Lovell said that he and the CHP provide annual training in criminal and traffic laws to law enforcement training officers in several locations around the state. He said the police don’t have the expertise that CHP does, so they follow CHP advice on traffic enforcement. He welcomed our offer to provide bicyclist input into this training.

Danielle Higgs said that the sheriffs work closely with the police chiefs on the training.

Senator Kehoe said that the SCR 47 Committee was dormant and the SHSP could address some issues, but there were still issues that needed to be addressed.

Jim Baross said we were anxious to be involved in modifying the training provided by the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST). He said that he had been working with CHP Assistant Chief Howland on SHSP matters, but that the last he had heard from Howland was in August and that he has since moved on.

John Lovell confirmed that the training to which he referred was POST-certified.

Jim Baross then said that some of the confusion was because of the incomplete wording in the CHP Redi-Ref concerning CVC 21202.

Senator Kehoe said that rather than legislation, she preferred that the stakeholders have several meetings to address POST training and the law.

John Lovell suggested that no legislation was necessary for the time being and that the stakeholders have 2 or 3 meetings, with legislation in the future.

Randy Iwasaki described how the SHSP was a major effort with 80 challenge areas. He said that coordination problems with other agencies, particularly the DMV and CHP, are worked out in quarterly directors meetings. He said that he agreed with the need for uniformity and that bicyclists need to be represented on the CTCDC. He said that Caltrans was represented at CTCDC meetings by Robert Copp.

Bob Shanteau pointed out that Wayne Henley represented Caltrans at the CTCDC. He said that he had written a Decision Document and that the California Bicycle Advisory Committee had approved it and sent it on to the CTCDC for consideration at its next meeting on January 21.

John Lovell said that it would be helpful to add a break out section to the annual notice of legislative changes.

Joe Farrow said that he sees two sets of bicyclists – those who follow the law and those who don’t. He said that when he was on patrol and saw a group of bicyclists in 2 or 3 rows who looked like they knew what they were doing, he did not bother them. Mixed use of roads, however, presents an inherent danger, what with the difference in speeds and the vulnerability of bicyclists.

At this point, Senator Kehoe was called to the Senate floor for a vote. She directed the group to work out the details and to get back to her in June. CHP and Caltrans will take the lead in coordination with her office. The police chiefs, sheriffs and POST would also be involved in the dialog. She instructed the group to work out the details, including membership.

Jim Baross said that education was crucial, starting in the elementary schools. He said that the goal of the group should be to resolve apparent differing approaches to portions of the CVC related to bicycling so that LAB Bike Ed instruction and traffic enforcement actions are in agreement.

Senator Kehoe said that she wanted the first stakeholders meeting within a month and for us to add the appropriate members. CHP would take the lead in organizing the meetings and James Lombardo would take the lead for the bicyclists.

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.

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/onramp1.jpg

Here’s a slide that gives a visual representation of the problems created by this bike lane treatment (and even a wide lane under Far To Right law guidance): http://www.cyclistview.com/uploadedphotos/Incompatible-Destination-Lanes-Draft.jpg

And here’s a detailed explanation in terms of Engineering and Planning and the Legal/Operational issues that result:

1) Engineering Mistake – Striping a dual destination exclusive use roadway lane such as a bike lane, to the right of dual destination roadway travel lane is a fundamental engineering error that creates a conflict between the legally allowed users of these two lanes:
    a. A collision conflict is created when a right turning travel lane user desires to turn right at the same time a bicyclist desires to ride straight through the intersection, or when such conflicting movements ensue when the motorist and bicyclist, both stopped side by side at a red light, both start to move and cross paths when the light turns green.
    b. The fact that a bike lane looks like a shoulder, creates operational confusion, with motorists and bicyclists both acting like the bike lane is a functional shoulder, with the bicyclists riding in it up to the intersection stop line, and the motorists turning across it, instead of merging into it, as if it were a shoulder (which motorists cannot legally use for normal travel movements).  Here’s a video clip exemplary of this problem at a faded (but dashed) bike lane in Irvine, CA: http://www.cyclistview.com/equitablepdintro/slide29.htm  (full presentation below…)
    c. Legal Problems – The placement of the lanes is fundamentally incompatible with the standard traffic laws, and requires patches to the law to make these facilities function more safely than described in b., above.
        i. Some states like CA, have patch laws that require drivers to merge into the bike lane portion of the roadway to make right turns, as this allows turning drivers to literally physically block overtaking bicyclists in the bike lane from passing on the right; thus forcing them to either queue, or pass on the left per the exceptions in the CA mandatory bike lane use law. Many motorists and cyclists do not understand this legal requirement, and act as described in a. and b. above.
        ii. Other states like Oregon, have given up on treating bicyclists as drivers and treat the bike lane as a kind of shoulder that motorists cannot legally enter to make turns, and have non-standard right of way rules that allow later arriving through bicyclists priority of earlier arriving motorists waiting to make a right turn across the bike lane. This legal posture encourages bicyclists to pass motorists on the right at intersections when they have the green light, or otherwise wait alongside stopped vehicles at intersections when the light is red; thus requiring both motorists and bicyclists to act as described in a. and b. above.
        iii. Other states have not even bothered to resolve the incompatibility and are “hoping for the best”; this is unprofessional behavior on the part of transportation professionals.

2) Planning Mistake – It is a mistake to think of bicyclists IN THE ROADWAY, as something other than a driver, and create facilities that, often in concert with mandatory use laws, encourage/force them to act as something other than a driver; since this creates the operational/legal crossing conflicts [the leading causes of car-bike crashes] identified in 1). If the goal is to separate those bicyclists not wishing to use the roadway as drivers from other traffic at intersections, then re-define bike lanes as a non-roadway part of the highway, and establish special traffic laws and controls to deal with these de-facto (or in cases with mandatory use laws de jure) one way sidepaths, and allow those bicyclists who can act as drivers to use the roadway travel lanes as drivers. This means eliminating discriminatory laws that force all bicyclists onto the non-standard/non-driver facilities, while simultaneously making these facilities optional for cyclists. The League of American Bicyclists Equity Statement describes how this can be achieved working in each of the 6Es (Equality, Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Encouragement and Evaluation): http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equity_statement_1-05-09.pdf

In addition, this approach recognizes that not all cyclists choose the same behavior, and that this behavior spectrum must be understood and accounted for by planners. Here’s a presentation that describes the behavior spectrum and how to equitably plan for cyclists through the 6Es approach embodied in the Equity Statement: http://www.cyclistview.com/equitablepdintro/index.htm

California law requires motorists to merge into a bike lane before turning right.  This is consistent with destination positioning 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 of only occupying 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, the California law appears to be the best way to address the potential conflicts.

The problem as I see it is that the culture of “cars rule” and motorists not wanting bicyclists “in their way” has infected the traffic enforcement culture – police and judges (never mind juries or our peers?!). Police don’t get adequate training, and those that I have individually addressed (local SDPD and Calif. Highway Patrol) either don’t read the whole text of the law or just reflexively respond that bikes “unequivocally” must always get out of the way of overtaking motor vehicles… THIS IS NOT THE LAW!

To warn bicyclists, I advise you/we spread the information to bicyclists; for instance:

1)     Be trained. If you haven’t researched the law and/or taken a course from a League Cycling Instructor, you probably do not know or understand the best practices for bicycling with relative safety, efficiency and just what the written Calif. Vehicle Code says about bicycling and traffic operations. (I’ll append the the Calif. Vehicle Code section we’re having trouble with below.

2)     Ride aware. Bicycling in with motor vehicle traffic in typical urban environments requires vigilance, skill and awareness of traffic control devices – bike lanes, general traffic lanes, etc. etc. Knowing when a Bike Lane stripe or a practice of riding as far to the right in a lane may be leading you into danger – door zones, right-hook likelihood, a lane too narrow to share side by side, etc. – is important to assure relatively safe travel by bicycle. Choose to ride in a manner and location that is safest for you. Do not blindly accept a stripe of paint as providing the best information about where and what to do. That motorist honking behind you is not necessarily honking to keep you safe; more likely to bully you out of their way.

3)     If you encounter a police officer who asks you to ride differently or is considering giving you a traffic citation/ticket, DO NOT ARGUE! Do not question the officer’s knowledge of traffic law. Many otherwise friendly encounters have resulted in ticketing, probably just because the officer considered the bicyclist as combative, argumentative, “hard-headed”. In most cases it is best to listen, node, and follow the directions of the officer while they are in contact/view of you.

4)     Whether you must follow the directions of an officer when that action would directly endanger you is a question I cannot answer.

5)     If you are cited, LET US KNOW. Post to our email list at caboforum.org or leave a message here. You should seek advice about whether the circumstances for which you were cited qualify as actually being compliant with the law; that you were actually acting legally. If you decide to fight the ticket at court, we do not recommend that you appear at court w/o backup; even though you think your case is a slam-dunk – that your circumstances met the exceptions under CVC 21202. Some judges apparently DO NOT CARE what the law reads…

6)     Get a transcript or other record of the trial. If there is sufficient documentation we may be able to use the case as a “poster child” example of the problem of inappropriate ticketing and/or judicial decisions.

7)     If found guilty, LET US KNOW. Join your experience with our efforts to get this changed. If found not guilty, Great! Let us know that too.

8)     I cannot yet recommend formal appeals of bad decisions; we have a poor record with appeals so far. But, if you wish to push the system, please contact us for advice… though we are not going to provide legal advice – you’ll need an attorney for that. We can help you and your attorney with the experiences other bicyclists have had.

Jim Baross

Vice Chair, Calif. Bicycle Advisory Committee

President, Calif. Association of Bicycle Organizations
Board Member, Calif. Bicycle Coalition
Spokesperson, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
League of American Bicyclists, 2009 State Ambassador for California
League LCI Trainer & Effective Cycling Instructor #185 K-C
Co-Chair, Strategic Highway Safety Plan, #13 – Improve Bicycling Safety

“Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on our public road(way)s, just as does every other user. Nothing more is expected. Nothing less is acceptable.”
Jack R. Taylor

“Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.”
John Forester

“Same Roads Same Rules Same Rights”
SDCBC

“Roads are for people, not just for people in cars.”
Jim Baross

“Bicycling is Personal Rapid & Cheap Transit”
(Who wrote that?)

California Vehicle Code 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.

Ride on!

The League of American Bicyclists League Cycling Instructors are to teach that vehicle traffic laws apply to bicyclists too, that a full stop is required, AND that the important behavior for everyone’s safety and efficient travel is looking/scanning for and yielding to other approaching road users. Someone can legally complete a full stop and then still fail to yield!

I don’t think we/I should or can successfully object to equal treatment/enforcement – police ticketing bicyclists as well as motorists for unsafe rolling stops. Maybe someday pedestrian and bicycle (clean) travel might achieve superior status and right-of-way over motor vehicle operation. In the meantime, I’d prefer to focus my/CABO efforts on fair and increased education and enforcement toward bicyclists AND motorists who fail to yield — rather than targeting those who creep through carefully.
And, there are too many instances of installation of a Stop sign when no sign or a yield sign would be more appropriate. Right?

Jim Baross, CABO President

This was provided about a special meeting of the Calif Traffic Control Devices Committee, an important advisory body to Caltrans. The meeting was about potential trials at expanding experiments at allowing Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV) to operate in Bike Lanes. NEVs are road legal small vehicles resembling gold carts.

Roberta:

I enjoyed the opportunity to provide to the CTCDC the CBAC, CABO and CBC perspectives regarding NEV use that are quite different from those apparently held and promoted by NEV proponents in Lincoln. We are supportive of encouraging the lawful use of NEVs and other clean/green travel modes, but, I hope I successfully made the points that:
1) Allowing motorized vehicles (NEVs) as regular users of bike lanes or worse of shared use bike paths and/or providing additional special lanes for NEV use will contribute to conflicts among all users reducing safety and efficient travel for bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians AND NEV users;
2) Unlike NEV users, slow moving (all) bicyclists are allowed on all roads except some roads (freeways) with limited access. In order to encourage expanded capabilities for use of NEVs it would seem more productive to remove or modify the restrictions on where NEVs may be used so that more roads (all roads?) are open to their use.
So, I understand that you cannot attend the February CBAC meeting to comment but could you provide, perhaps through Ken, any update to where, when, how, who and/or what we can expect in the moving forward of the efforts of the Lincoln and other NEV supporters?
Thanks

Jim Baross

Vice Chair, Calif Bicycle Advisory Committee

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.