CHP 21202 side-by-side reasoning

[Serge Issakov]

A friend of mine is appealing a case where he was found guilty of violating 21202 because there was a cyclist on his right despite the lane being very narrow (10.5').  The CHP officer agreed had he been riding solo, not next to anyone, he would not have been in violation. 

I created this graphic to illustrate this "reasoning".  Please let me know what you think.

Serge

[Serge Issakov]

More to the point:

[Gary Cziko]

Clever, revealing and illustrative.

Are you sure the actual position of the left cyclist was not a factor in the issuance of the ticket and the judge's ruling?

-- Gary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAEy9bH6P1kOHHCR5pH%2BM00b84UujDSqr17yD4DFAsu3b-3_%3D0A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

I'm sure about the issuance of the ticket.  I arrived a few minutes after the cyclist was pulled over and talked to the CHP officer. We "agreed to disagree", but he was quite clear about a solo cyclist having the right to be positioned anywhere in the lane because of the narrow lane exception.

Here's the thing.  The CHP reads 21202 to prohibit side-by-side riding, period, with no regard to the exceptions, despite it saying nothing about side-by-side riding.  They only take the exceptions into account for solo cyclists.

I have no idea what the traffic commissioner was thinking. She revealed very little in court and even less (nothing) in her written ruling ("guilty").

Serge

[Michael Graff]

So the CHP thinks 21202 is a "single file only" rule?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAEy9bH7J0bOmd9okQ5Kz__G__6WtLKJ1ZEPDhDon4sMpZFrOyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

Not quite.  If it was a single file rule then either or both of two riders riding side-by-side could be in violation for not riding in single-file.  That's now how they interpret it. Only the one on the left is considered in violation.

If you pay attention only to the main requirement, "shall ride as close as practicable to the right", ignoring the qualifications and exceptions, it makes sense: if one rider is compliant then anyone on their left is logically NOT riding "as close as practicable to the right".

Of course, ignoring the qualifications and exceptions is ridiculous.

Serge

[Michael Graff]

You might be assuming "reasoning" that doesn't exist ;) Here's what I suspect the "logic" is:

• 21202 means "single file, as close as practicable to the right"
• The left cyclist is automatically in violation, regardless of the exceptions, because they're not single file
• The right cyclist in this case was deemed "as close as practicable to the right"

How many times have we heard bike ride organizers tell participants to ride "single file, as close as practic(ab)le to the right"? Where do they get that from? Consulting the CHP?

[John F. Hess]

Because the diagram represents a snap shot in time, it's possible that the red cyclist in example 1 is passing the green cyclist to his right and thus, using one of the exemptions, legal.  In the "more to the point" diagram, the 2 left green cyclists and bottom green cyclist could be a fast, small, group passing the red and green cyclist and thus, as you note, the red cyclist is not riding as close as practicable to the right.  

I don't think it's a CHP only interpretation.  Attached is a sign on Stevenson Bridge Rd, Solano Co, just west of Davis.  It's been discussed a lot (I think with the Sheriff) and remains.

[Alan Wachtel]

This is preposterous. If the narrow lane exception applies, then "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway," no matter how you contort it, doesn't come into effect, and there can be no offense for violating it. Just another example of LEOs and courts taking the law to mean what they want it to mean, rather than what it says. But the CHP should know better.

~ Alan

[Serge Issakov]

We don’t know their speed relative to other traffic either. But I think it’s reasonable to assume that without other information the formation shown is approximately static for the foreseeable future.    

But the main point is there should be no requirement for anyone to be riding  “as close as practicable to the right“ because the lane is “too narrow to be shared side-by-side“.

I did not mean to imply that only the CHP holds this interpretation. Traffic courts accept it. And I know of sheriffs that see it that way too. 

Serge

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/23518ddc-3fb7-4217-b63d-b42cb6e7d245n%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Graff]

They way I've heard the "single file" rule derived is like this:

• If the cyclist on the right is "as close as practicable"
• Then the cyclist on their left is not

The logic, of course, is flawed. But isn't traffic enforcement ultimately based on "what they want it to mean?" 

They stopped the left cyclist because they wanted to. Once you do that, you must retcon the vehicle code to justify the stop.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:31 PM 'Alan Wachtel' via CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

This is preposterous. If the narrow lane exception applies, then "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway," no matter how you contort it, doesn't come into effect, and there can be no offense for violating it. Just another example of LEOs and courts taking the law to mean what they want it to mean, rather than what it says. But the CHP should know better.

~ Alan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/5b96f7dc-91ce-ed13-1216-4142dd36a8d9%40aol.com.

[Serge Issakov]

Yes, but this logic is not flawed. 

What’s flawed is ignoring the exceptions in deriving this logic from 21202. 

By the way, I successfully argued in court as an expert witness that if the cyclist on the right is closer than practicable to the right (in a door zone in that case),  then the cyclist on the left is not necessarily in violation of “as close as practicable to the right”. That’s can be useful in unusually wide lanes that are wide enough for bike and car to share side by side, if there are also cars parked at the curb, and the cyclist on the right is in the door zone.

Serge

[Michael Graff]

The way I learned the bicycling laws was to go find them and read them and figure out what they meant. I assumed that's how law enforcement works. Learn the laws, then look for people breaking them.

It took me a long time to realize that law enforcement for cyclists works almost the opposite way: They look for atypical behavior, and stop the cyclist. Then figure out which law they might have broken.

And they're not working with the full text of the law, they're working with the shorthand summaries in the Redi-Ref.

That might be where the imaginary "single file" rule comes from. It's probably the obvious conclusion from the Redi-Ref wording.

[Serge Issakov]

Good point. I don’t think the refi-ref even mentions the narrow lane exception. 

Looks like Bob has the 2008 version posted, the only one I can find on the entire internet:

http://rmshant.googlepages.com/CHPRediRef2008.pdf

Looks like he just scanned it, so it's not searchable.

Here is all I see on 21202:

I'd like to see the current one, though I doubt they updated this part about 21202.

I think the "21202 => single file" interpretation is more folklore and logic based on ignoring the exceptions rather than an explicit written interpretation anywhere.

Serge

Serge

[Serge Issakov]

LOL. I forgot all about this.  From 2013:

Comments [Sheriff Capt. Robert]  Haley [since retired] made about the [sharrow] lanes during a community gathering in Solana Beach last month drew the ire of a handful of bicyclists.

“Some people think it’s a giant bike lane,” he said, adding that, according to the law, cyclists are always supposed to ride as far to the right as possible anytime they are on a roadway, even in a sharrow or bike lane.

He said the major complaints his station has received have been when cyclists ride in groups rather than a single file, as they are legally obligated to do.

Bill Davidson accused Haley in an online comment of being “fundamentally ignorant about the law and bicycle safety.” Serge Issakov said the captain got “so much wrong … it’s just incredible.”

Haley praised local city officials for their forward thinking when it comes to bicycle safety, but he said it wasn’t their intent to allow cyclists to ride any way other than in a single file. He said that’s the biggest issue he has with the lanes.

The motor vehicle code states, “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 a few conditions, including when it’s “reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe.”

Those unsafe conditions include a car door opening into the path of the cyclist, a likely occurrence on a roadway with parallel parking.

In that case, “they may have to ride in the middle of the sharrow for as long as it’s unsafe,” Haley said. “We’re not going to write anyone up for riding in the middle of a sharrow.

“If a person is riding to the left of someone else, he isn’t as far to the right as possible,” he added.

Haley said he verified the law with [notorious] Traffic Commissioner Larry Jones, who confirmed that cyclists must ride in a single line while on a street.

...

https://thecoastnews.com/sheriff-captain-clarifies-sharrow-rules/

Don't miss the comments at that link. ;-)

I miss Bill Davidson.  RIP, my friend.

Serge

[Michael Graff]

From that text, there are hardly any exceptions to ignore: "Operate at right-hand curb, or right-hand edge... exceptions for passing... and avoiding unsafe conditions"

If that's the only "law" you know, then it's pretty easy to conclude "single-file to the right, except when passing". It would be hard NOT to conclude that from those words.

[Gary Cziko]

People,

Earlier I mentioned this statement by made today on the Webinar by our Caltrans Director:

"Don't blame victims for not being more visible when we have a roadway system that hides people from drivers!"
(potentially paraphrased during my note taking)

 

I wonder if in addition to California installing bicycle infrastructure that did a good job of hiding cyclists until right before impact, Toks realized that we have bicycle laws that are inaccurately interpreted by law enforcement as prohibiting legal and visible double-file riding and single-cyclist lane control. All it might take is getting him to spend 8 minutes watching this excellent CyclingSavvy video on CVC 21202 made possible by the support of the

 (thanks again, Pete v N and OCBC Directors!).

Is this something worth some effort by CABO? If Toks could understand this and if he really is interested in safety for vulnerable road users as his no. 1 priority as he emphasized, could he actually make some difference with CHP and California sheriffs and maybe even ditching CVC 21202?

-- Gary

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CANe0fGXTw5X57-h0k-n9ZexVa0iG5egBZtdYjNseejasbYXiiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Wachtel]

Serge Issakov wrote:

Looks like Bob has the 2008 version posted, the only one I can find on the entire internet:

http://rmshant.googlepages.com/CHPRediRef2008.pdf

Looks like he just scanned it, so it's not searchable.

I've OCRed and indexed the file, so it's now searchable, if anyone would like a copy (~4.5 MB).

~ Alan

[Michael Graff]

Does the Redi-Ref still need to exist? Now that officers have computers that can hold the full CVC text?

Why do we still have a highly misleading Cliff Notes version of the CVC?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/471c7a44-aa27-298f-6139-8bcef000178b%40aol.com.

[John Cinatl]

Hi Folks

Jim and the two Alan's may remember this ................... way back in maybe 2008 we had a discussion during one of our CBAC meetings regarding the accuracy of some sections of the CHP Redi-Reference. At the time we had two CHP folks in our CBAC group and I volunteered to get a copy from them and look up whatever topic we were discussing during that CBAC meeting.

I got a call from her the next day and she told me I would need to submit written request to the CHP office stating the purpose of my request. I submitted what was requested and waited. About two months later I contacted her again and said that I hadn't received a copy as yet and asked her to please check into it.

About 3-4 days later I got an e-mail from her stating that I could get a copy but that it would be heavily redacted!!!!!  I replied that Caltrans and the CHP, DMV, and OTS are all "sister" agency and that we should all be working together - not fighting each other.

Several days later I got another e-mail from her and she said that their management was holding firm and that all they would send me was a redacted copy. I thanked her (she was embarrassed and actually on our side) for all of her efforts and then told her to please cancel my request for a copy.

As such this is the first time I've ever seen a copy of that guide.

John Cinatl

Port Hueneme

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/471c7a44-aa27-298f-6139-8bcef000178b%40aol.com

.

[Jim Baross]

I won't say where the printed RediRef I have came from. I don't know if it is current or not. It cuts 21202 as has been described.

Clint and I are submitting recommendations to the POST via SHSP that the narrow lane exception be added to their training about CVC 21202.

[Jim Baross]

I cannot answer where LEO now get their traffic law info.

I do suspect that many in the LEO community bias toward keeping bicyclists "OUT OF THE WAY."

Sad.

[Michael Graff]

Is the bias because they learned the Redi-Ref instead of the vehicle code? The Redi-Ref version of 21202 is an entirely different law than the real 21202:

21202a. Operate at right-hand curb, or right-hand edge of roadway, 

except may operate at left-hand curb or left-hand edge on one-way highway with two or more lanes.

Other exceptions for passing, preparing for left turn, and avoiding unsafe conditions.

Compared to

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.

The Redi-Ref doesn't even include "practicable"! It just says "operate at edge"! That's a completely different meaning than the actual law.

It would be like the Cliff Notes for Moby Dick talking about a guy obsessed with dolphins.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXfx4HSdeiKm747gowgaryZChQhS241--aA8gFEpZ%2BmAhA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

The other thing to add is when you derive logic from the law you can’t ignore the exceptions.  That leads to simplistic and inaccurate interpretation. 

Yes, if the cyclist on the right is as close as practicable to the right then the cyclist on their left is not as close as practicable to the right, but that's moot with respect to whether anyone is in violation of 21202 if exceptions in 21202 release the cyclists from the requirement to ride as close as practicable to the right in the current situation, like in a narrow lane.

Serge

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 5:57 PM Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXfx4HSdeiKm747gowgaryZChQhS241--aA8gFEpZ%2BmAhA%40mail.gmail.com.

[F Lehnerz]

Hi Gary,

One word answer: Yes

Frank 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2021, at 16:21, Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com> wrote:



People,

Earlier I mentioned this statement by made today on the Webinar by our Caltrans Director:

"Don't blame victims for not being more visible when we have a roadway system that hides people from drivers!"
(potentially paraphrased during my note taking)

 

<image.png>

I wonder if in addition to California installing bicycle infrastructure that did a good job of hiding cyclists until right before impact, Toks realized that we have bicycle laws that are inaccurately interpreted by law enforcement as prohibiting legal and visible double-file riding and single-cyclist lane control. All it might take is getting him to spend 8 minutes watching this excellent CyclingSavvy video on CVC 21202 made possible by the support of the

<image.png>

 (thanks again, Pete v N and OCBC Directors!).

Is this something worth some effort by CABO? If Toks could understand this and if he really is interested in safety for vulnerable road users as his no. 1 priority as he emphasized, could he actually make some difference with CHP and California sheriffs and maybe even ditching CVC 21202?

-- Gary

 

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:56 PM Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

From that text, there are hardly any exceptions to ignore: "Operate at right-hand curb, or right-hand edge... exceptions for passing... and avoiding unsafe conditions"

If that's the only "law" you know, then it's pretty easy to conclude "single-file to the right, except when passing". It would be hard NOT to conclude that from those words.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:43 PM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

Good point. I don’t think the refi-ref even mentions the narrow lane exception. 

Looks like Bob has the 2008 version posted, the only one I can find on the entire internet:

http://rmshant.googlepages.com/CHPRediRef2008.pdf

Looks like he just scanned it, so it's not searchable.

Here is all I see on 21202:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YwJP7%2Bb9vkQwKzTg3RvHetS_qZdF_cdLyxj-5KtAc5SCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[clint.sandusky]

Good evening everyone!

It was Day 1 of our CA POST Bike Patrol Course in Palm Desert.  During my cycling in traffic presentation, I showed the CyclingSavvy CVC 21202 video and had further discussion on its exceptions AND talked about 2, 3, and beyond abreast cyclists.

Essenetially I briefed officers if any of the 4 exceptions of CVC 21202 apply, when cyclists can ride 2 or more abreast in CA.  No CVC sections prohibits it and discussions it, keeping it simple.

Clint Sandusky

Riverside Community College District PD (cpl., retired)

CA POST Bike Patrol Instructor

IPMBA e-Bike Task Force member

Cycling in Traffic Educator & Advocate

E-Bike Presenter & Instructor

CABO, District 8 Director

Sent from my Galaxy Tab A

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/403A1934-DA01-40FC-AC32-6002AA5B491C%40gmail.com.

[Bob Shanteau]

CHP General Order 100.68 is its Traffic Enformcement Policy Manual. In the section on bicycles, it says:

…

(3) Section 21202 CVC states that every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride as near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable except:

(a) When passing slower moving vehicles or bicycles that are directly impeding their line of travel.

(b) When preparing to make a left turn.

(c) When attempting to avoid hazards in the roadway.

(d) When riding on a one-way street with more than two lanes , bicyclists may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable.

(4) Because of the relative speed difference between bicycles and motor vehicles, and in order to comply with the provisions of Section 21208(b) CVC
(the requirement that a bicyclist ride within the bicycle lane when the bicyclist's speed is less than the normal flow of traffic), a bicyclist may have to initiate a left-turning movement a considerable distance prior to arrival at the intended intersection, road, or driveway.

…(a) Enforcement for the turning movements of bicyclists shall be limited to those instances where Section 22107 CVC, Unsafe Turns, would apply.

(b) Section 21202 CVC precludes bicyclists from riding abreast of one another, assuming both bicyclists are on the roadway and one is not in the  process of passing the other.

I worked with Marie Schelling, a civilian employee of the CHP, to try to get this changed in 2014, but AFAIK our proposed changes were never adopted after she retired at the end of the year and her replacement knew nothing of what we had done. The last I heard was that Jim Baross and Marie met with the CHP in 2016, but that the discussion was limited to new e-bike legislation.

I subsequently submitted a public records request to get a new copy of the manual, but the CHP refused, saying it was not available to the public as it covers police procedures. I just now found out that their refusal was improper. Perhaps someone could use the info at that link to get current copies of the Traffic Enforcement Manual and the Redi-Ref.

Bob Shanteau

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/603488a1.1c69fb81.2c2ae.3817%40mx.google.com.

[Michael Graff]

Anybody notice what's missing from the version of 21202 in the CHP Traffic Enforcement Policy Manual? There's no mention of the narrow lane exception!

So the CHP has the Redi-Ref 21202 and the TEPM 21202, both of which leave out the most important part of CVC 21202.

No wonder CHP thinks 21202 requires single-file riding. If you use their chopped-down versions of 21202, that's the obvious conclusion.

[Pete Penseyres]

It's also missing from their pamphlet "Bicycle Riding What are the Laws" CHP 909 (12/11) OPI013 94 75015.

However, the following words are in a Share the Road "Three feet for Safety Act" card funded by the CHP OTS:

Under Tips for Motorists:  "Be aware that when a lane is too narrow for vehicles and bikes to be safely side by side, a bicyclist should ride in or near the center of that lane to discourage motorists from unsafe passing."

There is a QR code on this card that leads to a website which states that leads to: "Oops!" The page you are looking for doesn't exist any more."

The Carlsbad Office of the CHP handed both of those to Jim Baross and I a few years ago when we met with them.

Jim did his usual great job of presenting our version of 21202, but they disagreed. Jim politely agreed to disagree with their interpretation and it wasn't until after the meeting that we read the documents and understood why they continue to argue and cite on any width lane if the cyclist is not as far to the right as practicable.

We had gone into the meeting somewhat confident (at least I did) because the CHP Commander at the time, Capt. Amy Mangan was described as an avid hiker and a cyclist.

If there is any interest in either of these collector items, please let me know and I will scan and attach them to another thread

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CANe0fGVkYnO2EaiTeCJ72xoc%2BOxp89MtzF7nBx08o%2BpCRr85hg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Michael Graff]

"when a lane is too narrow for vehicles and bikes to be safely side by side, a bicyclist should ride in or near the center of that lane" ...which still doesn't say what to expect when there are *two* bicyclists.

In the history of 21202, when did the "substandard width lane" language get added?

[Bob Shanteau]

Michael,

That language was added by SB 939 (Mills- 1975)

Legislative history and letter that George Oetzel submitted. Knowing what I do today, I would have used a different term than substandard width.

Bob Shanteau

[Michael Graff]

Thanks Bob. So the CHP is enforcing the pre-1975 version of the vehicle code. How did they manage to go nearly a half century without updating their materials?

(Both links below point to the letter)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAObDU8oa8PuNobEMzsDE8TsPfTyGhb0Oj5hyR3uSWh%2B140WQBA%40mail.gmail.com.