CABO

Here’s an interesting article discussing how motorists should legally and safely make right turns in the presence of a bike lane (with no separate right turn only lane):  http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_13669464

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/

W/in the last month (July and August 2009) or so we have started hearing about more instances of police citing bicyclists for doing what we think the law allows. No, not for rolling stops or other scofflaw behaviors; I mean for “taking a lane” or “riding two-abreast” in situations where the law allows such behaviors, based on our 100+ years of bicycling experiences through the  League of American Bicyclists. For instance, we’ve had two 21202 citations that were upheld by the courts in San Diego; that is two that I know about and that I have determined were not reflective of illegal action by the bicyclists. There’s also Chris Z.’s case in Pasadena; he was cited, found guilty and his ($4,000) appeal was denied. Chris is an League Cycling Instructor. Read more…

The so-called “California Stop”/rolling stop is commonly done by motorists and bicyclists. It can often be safely accomplished, though the behavior is illegal because under California law a full stop is required. When challenged about the extent to which I ride a bicycle legally – especially related to stop signs – I disclose that I ride/drive my bicycles in the same manner that I drive my cars. This usually gets a nervous laugh response because the motorists in the audience, although irate about the behavior of “all those bicyclists” realize that they have rolled through stops too. Read more…

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. Read more…

On Friday, October 31, at approximately 3:30 PM, I was bicycling northbound on [street name removed].  Approaching the railroad tracks, the bike lane disappears and the outside lane narrows to a width that is unsafe to share side by side with a motor vehicle.  I checked for traffic to the rear and then merged to the center of the outside lane.  This is a defensive bicycling maneuver (supported by traffic law) to discourage motorists from passing too close within a narrow lane.  After my merge, I noticed in my mirror that one of your drivers was approaching from behind in the outside lane.  He saw me, safely changed lanes well in advance, and left plenty of passing clearance.  However, the driver honked his horn as he passed in apparent ignorance or disapproval of my right to use the road. Read more…

CABO was informed that a cyclist was cited for violating CVC 21202.  He felt that he was unfairly cited, fought the citation in traffic court and lost.  We can’t reveal specifics of the case because the cyclist is currently preparing an appeal.

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.

In recent years in Orange County, new travel corridors have been provided in the form of toll roads through locations where no other paved roads previously existed. These provide shortcuts for motorists, but currently bicyclists must take the long way around to get from Point “A” to Point “B” in many cases.

State Route 241 in Orange County, California, provides the only direct access between the new Portola Springs community in Irvine and the residential/commercial areas of Foothill Ranch. The direct route via SR241 is 1.6 miles and is prohibited to bicyclists, while the shortest legal alternate route for bicyclists is 8.4 miles. This four minute video, created by League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor, Brian DeSousa, makes the case for allowing bicyclist access to this section of SR241.

The video is also available directly on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bDvmtzNDfA – for those who can’t access YouTube, the video is the second from the top in the following page: http://www.cyclistview.com/innertube/

(Backdated to archive in the CABO blog. The appeal was ultimately denied.)

PRESS RELEASE: California, February 19, 2007

Bike Paths: Safe or Sorry? Los Angeles City’s Bait and Switch

People injured on Bike Paths are being cheated out of the protections available to all Californians who are hurt on a public road, sidewalk or bike lane due to the negligence of a municipality. The public has been led to believe that Bike Paths (Class 1 bikeway transportation routes, paved and separated from car traffic) are built with safety in mind partly because California Highway Code establishes minimum safety standards for Bike Paths. But the reality is that municipalities such as the City of Los Angeles are hiding from their responsibility behind a claim that Bike Paths built for transportation are the same as unpaved trails opened for recreation. People are being baited by the promise of a safe Bike Path, but switched to the “ride at your own risk” exposure of an undeveloped trail.

The cycling community is fighting back. California bicyclists and three of the largest cycling organizations in the country, the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), the California Bicycle Coalition (CBC), and the national League of American Bicyclists (LAB) have rallied to bring an appeal of current court precedent. The appellate briefs in the appeal, Prokop v. City of Los Angeles et al have been filed with the California Court of Appeal. Oral argument in this case, Case: B184025 2nd District, Division 8, is scheduled for February 28, 2007 at the California Court of Appeal, Los Angeles.

The appellate briefs, two amicus curiae briefs submitted by the cycling community that were rejected by the courts without explanation, and other background information are available at [see links below]

Contacts

The following individuals are recommended and available regarding this appeal:

John Forester, America’s preeminent cycling engineer – [phone number deleted]
Jim Baross, CABO President – [phone number deleted]
Alan Wachtel, CABO Government Relations Chair – [phone number deleted]
Amanda Eichstaedt, LAB, President & West Coast Representative – [phone number deleted]

Karen Coffin-Brant, Esq., appellate attorney for the plaintiff, can be reached at [phone number deleted].
Contributions to the legal defense fund, “Returning Standards of Care to Bike Paths” may be sent to: [address deleted].

Key Court Documents

Appellant’s Opening Brief
City Respondent’s Brief
Appellant’s Reply Brief
CABO’s Amicus Curiae Brief (not accepted by court)
John Forester’s Amicus Curiae Brief (not accepted by court)