Fwd: National MUTCD 2023 (11th Edition) Review & Adoption - CA MUTCD 2026 Parts 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are posted

[Jim Baross]

FYI

Yes, you too may submit recommendations.

How about:

Sharrows allowed on roads where they'd help even when the posted speed limit is over 35.

Develop and deploy official signs for Class IV Separated Bikeways so these aren't confused with Class II Bike Lanes.

Develop and deploy signs clearly allowing bicycling on freeways where bicycling is not prohibited.

Modify the existing sign at freeway entrances designating prohibited devices to clarify that the prohibition for "motor-driven cycles" does not apply against lawful electric bicycles.

Revisit and expand design criteria for Class IV Cycle tracks to reduce bicyclist  crashes due to impacting raised barriers, especially at intersections, etc.

Beef up the guidance warning of the potential hazards to bicycling from use of pole barricades at Class I bikeway entrances and exits.

Clarify that the measurement of the minimum width of Bikeways should not include the gutter space.

Provide stronger warning that Bike Lanes width should not include the Door Zone space. The minimum width of a Bike Lanes should not be measured as including the Door Zone - 4 to 5 feet from a parked standard size vehicle. 

What else?

Jim Baross

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: CAMUTCD@DOT <CAM...@dot.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 2:24 PM
Subject: National MUTCD 2023 (11th Edition) Review & Adoption - CA MUTCD 2026 Parts 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 are posted
To:

CA MUTCD Practitioners,

 

Caltrans has been reviewing the National MUTCD 2023 (11th Edition) for adoption in California since early 2024.  These reviews are nearing completion, allowing Caltrans to begin developing draft proposals to revise the current CA MUTCD 2014R9 to bring it into “substantial conformance” with the National MUTCD 2023 (11^th Edition).  Caltrans plans to issue the revised CA MUTCD 2026 on or before January 18, 2026.

 

The webpage on California’s National MUTCD 2023 review and adoption efforts is available at:

https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd/nmutcd

 

This webpage includes information and details on National MUTCD 2023, 23 CFR Part 655, Subpart F, California’s review and adoption process and CA MUTCD 2026 development. It includes details on National MUTCD as the national standard, State MUTCDs and substantial conformance requirements, Supplemental documents conformance requirements, dates and deadline for compliance and compliance of existing devices and in construction projects. Caltrans review and adoption efforts, timelines and schedules, Subject Matter Experts Workgroup member reviews, public review and process for submitting comments, CTCDC agenda items, meetings, and meeting minutes, submitting comments directly on the webpage, downloadable forms for submitting comments and contact information for CA MUTCD Team are also provided. For CA MUTCD 2026 development, the webpage provides draft documents of the individual parts, chapter content files for text, figures and tables, compare documents with markups, Phase specific versions of chapter contents and status of individual parts and progress towards finalization.

 

Caltrans has completed draft proposals for the following parts and posted them on the webpage referenced below:

• Part 1 – General
• Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
• Part 5 – Traffic Control Device Considerations for Automated Vehicles
• Part 7 – Traffic Control for School Areas
• Part 9 – Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities

 

CA MUTCD 2026 Part 4 is now open to the public for review and comment and included in the agenda for the CTCDC Meeting on September 4, 2025.  The webpage referenced below includes a feature for submitting comments directly from the website, while also providing downloadable forms which can be submitted electronically or through the regular mail.

 

CTCDC meetings information is available at:

     https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/ctcdc

 

Please feel free to share this information with other statewide CA MUTCD practitioners, as appropriate.

 

 

Thank you,

 

California MUTCD Team

CA MUTCD Website | CA MUTCD Contacts

Traffic Engineering HQ Contact

 

 

[Scott Mace]

Individual comments are fine. But will CABO submit formal comments as an organization, with the board's support?

Scott Mace

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXeK-fyc3oYTOuRth1eRY0ktQQSiKDj5v2%3DK1BUaNG6xHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

I plan to do both.

Does anyone object to what I listed or have additional item

Jim Baross

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/cb371402-42a6-42f0-877b-8d5e199922ab%40wiredmuse.com.

[Alan Wachtel]

We need to emphasize that Sections 9B.18, Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box Regulatory Signing, and 9B.19, Bicycle Jughandle Signs, and their associated regulatory signing are entirely inappropriate in California. There is no authority in California law to require bicyclists to use two-stage turn boxes or jughandles.

~ Alan

[Jim Baross]

Nicole and fellow advocates,

Let’s stop pretending that bicycles are not traffic. We belong on the road. Period. California law is crystal clear—cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers. The problem isn’t legality.  Several California vehicle codes support the realities of roadway sharing. Vehicle Codes: CVC 21200 - rights, CVC 21202 - position in a lane, CVC 21760 - change lanes to pass bicyclists. 

The problem is denial.

DANGER?

Large speed differentials do increase the potential for collisions and the severity of damage, pain, suffering, and deaths. Separating faster traffic from slower traffic is one way to reduce conflicts; let's do that. Another way is to reduce speed differentials through lower and enforced speed limits, and by providing information to potential speeders that "there will be bikes in the way." That's primarily what Sharrows and BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE signs are for. Prohibiting the communication that "there will be bikes" via Sharrows and BMUFL signs does a disservice to people who would bicycle anywhere, anytime.

Some solutions are obvious and include:
Build separated bikeways wherever possible.
Enforce lower speed limits.

Educate all road users about the laws for driving a bicycle.
But, until that day comes, make it clear: bikes can belong here.

Every day, people on bikes find roads designed only for motor vehicles—40+ mph traffic, lanes too narrow to share, zero shoulders, no safe and reasonable alternatives. And yet, cities drag their feet, promising fixes “someday.” I’m nearly 80. Someday doesn't cut it. People deserve safer access today.

Sharrows and Bikes May Use Full Lane (BMUFL) signs aren’t decoration. They are lifesaving communications. They tell drivers, “Bikes will be here. Slow down. Share the road.” They tell cyclists: “You have the right to be here. Take the lane. Stay alive.”

Taking those tools away does not make us safer—it makes us invisible. It erases our presence. It silences the truth that bikes are traffic. And when we’re invisible, we’re dead.

Sharrows and BMUFL signs are a line in the sand. Keep them, expand them, and fight for more. Because the alternative is a transportation system that tells anyone not in a car: your life doesn’t matter.

Some people - especially young and inexperienced people - lack the bicycling and traffic knowledge, skills, or capabilities for making informed decisions about existing route choices. Their limitations can often be ameliorated by roadway and bikeway facilities design and operational improvements that serve these "8 to 80s" folks. Let's get busy advocating for funding appropriate projects! In the meantime ... 
We should not have to wait decades for the “ideal network.” We need visibility, respect, and safety now. This is not about paint—it’s about survival.

(Note that the reasons to use Sharrows have been expanded to include way-finding, showing bicyclists a recommended route regardless of the available lane widths.)

Jim Baross

Former board member, League of American Bicyclists

Former board member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

President, California Association of Bicycling Organizations

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 8:29 AM Nicole Burgess <nicol...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sorry, I am not supportive of sharrows on streets with speeds greater than 35mph.  It is far too dangerous for all ages and abilities and there should be better alternatives to create safe conditions for all. 

I try to stay open-minded so please provide a situation where this might be appropriate. 

Thank you.

Nicole 

Enjoy the Ride! 

On Aug 20, 2025, at 3:36 PM, Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI