Cycling straight through a left- or right-turn lane

616 views
Skip to first unread message

Gary Cziko

unread,
Jan 30, 2022, 5:09:10 PM1/30/22
to Cabo Forum

People,

A few questions about CVC 22101 provided below.

22101.  
(a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities, in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.
(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection, notice of that requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to that additional traffic lane shall be given by an official traffic control device.
(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection, notice of that prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.
(d) When an official traffic control device is placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of the official traffic control device.
(e) (1) A person operating a bicycle may travel straight through a right- or left-hand turn only lane when an official traffic control device indicates that the movement is permitted.
(2) The Department of Transportation shall develop standards for lane striping, pavement markings, and appropriate regulatory signs to implement this subdivision.
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 221, Sec. 1. (AB 1266) Effective January 1, 2020.)
1. I understand that Section (e) (1) allowing cyclists to travel straight from turn lanes was added to the statue in 2019 to become effective 1/1/2020. Is that correct?

2. Would the following sign constitute an example of the traffic control device mentioned in (e)(1) and (2) on a weekday between 6 and 9 am?
image.png

3. Whether the answer to no. 2 is yes or no, can anyone provide an example of a sign or roadway marking currently existing in California that would clearly satisfy (e)(1) and (2) of CVC 22101?

Thanks for any help,

Gary

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABObike.org)
CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)
Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (March 2015 - August 2021)
Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

Clinton Sandusky

unread,
Jan 30, 2022, 6:47:34 PM1/30/22
to Gary Cziko, Cabo Forum
Hi Gary Cziko,

See my replies below in red.

Clint



On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:09 PM Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com> wrote:
People,

A few questions about CVC 22101 provided below.

22101.  
(a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities, in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.
(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection, notice of that requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to that additional traffic lane shall be given by an official traffic control device.
(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection, notice of that prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.
(d) When an official traffic control device is placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of the official traffic control device.
(e) (1) A person operating a bicycle may travel straight through a right- or left-hand turn only lane when an official traffic control device indicates that the movement is permitted.
(2) The Department of Transportation shall develop standards for lane striping, pavement markings, and appropriate regulatory signs to implement this subdivision.
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 221, Sec. 1. (AB 1266) Effective January 1, 2020.)
1. I understand that Section (e) (1) allowing cyclists to travel straight from turn lanes was added to the statue in 2019 to become effective 1/1/2020. Is that correct?  Yes!

2. Would the following sign constitute an example of the traffic control device mentioned in (e)(1) and (2) on a weekday between 6 and 9 am?  No!  There is only one regulatory sign that meets the requirement of CVC 22101 (e)(1)(2).
image.png

3. Whether the answer to no. 2 is yes or no, can anyone provide an example of a sign or roadway marking currently existing in California that would clearly satisfy (e)(1) and (2) of CVC 22101?  See the only regulatory sign that meets the requirement of CVC 22101 (e)(1)(2) and noted within Sign Charts 2014 Edition (Including Revision 2) (ca.gov).  To be placed underneath the appropriate regulatory sign, as exampled here:
 
image.png
 
image.png

Thanks for any help,

Gary

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABObike.org)
CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)
Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (March 2015 - August 2021)
Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

--
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/CABUB_YyT5ppJt%2Bn5CiJwZh-q_N%3D5MUqSUmGaunAEHt3AbT6L0g%40mail.gmail.com.

Gary Cziko

unread,
Jan 30, 2022, 7:31:42 PM1/30/22
to Clinton Sandusky, Cabo Forum
Clint,

I'm not surprised that you would be the first to reply!

Your answers fit my expectations, although I must say I have never seen 
image.png
under an appropriate regulatory sign. Have these actually been installed in CA? If so, I'd love to find one on Google Streetview.

I have seen "BIKES OK" under bus lane signs in the City of Los Angeles. I hope that's really OK. You won't see those in Santa Monica, however, where I understand cyclists cannot use bus lanes. 😡 Nonetheless, I do like to play my harmonica in Santa Monica. Especially during Hanukkah! 😄

-- Gary

William Sellin

unread,
Jan 30, 2022, 7:58:59 PM1/30/22
to Gary Cziko, Cabo Forum
PCH in Newport Beach has the R118 (CA) sign added (and at several other locations like WB University at Jamboree) but no pavement markings.

R3-7r w R118 exception.png
CA MUTCD Class II RTOL EXCEPT .png
PastedGraphic-2.tiff
PastedGraphic-12.tiff
R118 (CA) RLMTR Except BIKE.JPG
Pages from Summary of changes for 2014 CA MUTCD Revision 5 March 27 2020.pdf
22101 R118+Sharrow.png
PD-3 Plan .png

William Sellin

unread,
Jan 30, 2022, 8:09:45 PM1/30/22
to gcz...@gmail.com, Clint Sandusky, Cabo Forum



___________________________



___________________________


___________________________



Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org


Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.

On Jan 30, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Clint,

I'm not surprised that you would be the first to reply!

Your answers fit my expectations, although I must say I have never seen 
<image.png>
under an appropriate regulatory sign. Have these actually been installed in CA? If so, I'd love to find one on Google Streetview.

I have seen "BIKES OK" under bus lane signs in the City of Los Angeles. I hope that's really OK. You won't see those in Santa Monica, however, where I understand cyclists cannot use bus lanes. 😡 Nonetheless, I do like to play my harmonica in Santa Monica. Especially during Hanukkah! 😄

-- Gary
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 3:47 PM Clinton Sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gary Cziko,

See my replies below in red.

Clint



On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 2:09 PM Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com> wrote:
People,

A few questions about CVC 22101 provided below.

22101.  
(a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities, in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.
(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection, notice of that requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to that additional traffic lane shall be given by an official traffic control device.
(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection, notice of that prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.
(d) When an official traffic control device is placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of the official traffic control device.
(e) (1) A person operating a bicycle may travel straight through a right- or left-hand turn only lane when an official traffic control device indicates that the movement is permitted.
(2) The Department of Transportation shall develop standards for lane striping, pavement markings, and appropriate regulatory signs to implement this subdivision.
(Amended by Stats. 2019, Ch. 221, Sec. 1. (AB 1266) Effective January 1, 2020.)
1. I understand that Section (e) (1) allowing cyclists to travel straight from turn lanes was added to the statue in 2019 to become effective 1/1/2020. Is that correct?  Yes!

2. Would the following sign constitute an example of the traffic control device mentioned in (e)(1) and (2) on a weekday between 6 and 9 am?  No!  There is only one regulatory sign that meets the requirement of CVC 22101 (e)(1)(2).
<image.png>

3. Whether the answer to no. 2 is yes or no, can anyone provide an example of a sign or roadway marking currently existing in California that would clearly satisfy (e)(1) and (2) of CVC 22101?  See the only regulatory sign that meets the requirement of CVC 22101 (e)(1)(2) and noted within Sign Charts 2014 Edition (Including Revision 2) (ca.gov).  To be placed underneath the appropriate regulatory sign, as exampled here:
 
<image.png>
 
<image.png>

Thanks for any help,

Gary

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABObike.org)
CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)
Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (March 2015 - August 2021)
Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights


--
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/CABUB_YyT5ppJt%2Bn5CiJwZh-q_N%3D5MUqSUmGaunAEHt3AbT6L0g%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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.

Clinton Sandusky

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 12:46:52 AM1/31/22
to William Sellin, Gary Cziko, Cabo Forum
...and NOW let's talk about safe, legal, and cooperative cycling in this circumstance (should you decide to ride like this within a RTOL).  Check out my non-professional diagram of riding strategies for CVC 22101(e)(1) (as attached).

Clint Sandusky


CVC 22101(e)(1).jpg

Serge Issakov

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 1:54:57 AM1/31/22
to clint.s...@gmail.com, Cabo Forum, Gary Cziko
Clint and Gary et al,

22101(e)(1) refers to “an official traffic control device indicates that the movement is permitted.”  It says device, not sign.  A traffic control device may be a sign, but doesn’t have to be. 

I’ve seen traffic engineers use shared lane markings in right turn only lanes.  If I got a citation for riding straight from a right turn only lane with sharrows I’d argue each sharrow qualifies as  “an official traffic control device [which] indicates that the movement is permitted.”  I bet I’d win. 

Serge


On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 3:47 PM Clinton Sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gary Cziko

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 9:55:25 AM1/31/22
to Serge Issakov, clint.sandusky, Cabo Forum
Serge wrote:

If I got a citation for riding straight from a right turn only lane with sharrows I’d argue each sharrow qualifies as  “an official traffic control device [which] indicates that the movement is permitted.”  I bet I’d win.

You might win, but it could turn out to be a sharrowing experience! 😄

-- Gary

clint.sandusky

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 10:19:15 AM1/31/22
to Serge Issakov, Cabo Forum, Gary Cziko
Good point Serge, but in all the real life examples of this 2020 law I know of, it's always been at least the "except bicycles" sign (the most visible and practical).

Clint



Sent from my Galaxy

Serge Issakov

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 10:23:32 AM1/31/22
to clint.sandusky, Cabo Forum, Gary Cziko

Pete van Nuys

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 10:38:56 AM1/31/22
to Cabo Forum

Resolved:
1.) sharrow is a traffic control device
2.) left of center position for straight through a RTO is the safest

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAEy9bH7ApAcxtd%3DdGLuJp5BA7KdRKtPiGM0L1C7YPb_EtdTH3A%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Pete van Nuys
Exec. Dir.
Orange County Bicycle Coalition
ECI, LCI, CSI
949 492 5737

Michael Graff

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 10:49:23 AM1/31/22
to petev...@cox.net, Cabo Forum
Would some people look at that marking and think “bicycles must turn right”?

Jim Baross

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 11:04:14 AM1/31/22
to Cabo Forum, clint.sandusky, Gary Cziko, Serge Issakov
The expanding justifications for the use of Sharrows is somewhat discouraging for the confusion resulting. What does a Sharrow communicate? Once and originally a message about available lane width to encourage door-zine avoidance and lane "control", to use for Way-finding on Bike Routes and through intersections, to now negating the requirements of a RTOL. 
Our old catch-phrase of "Same Roads Same Rules Same Rights" doesn't work any more. Now perhaps are times for "Some Roads Special Rules Superior Rights".
It seems that special accommodations for people bicycling (and walking) are being justified to encourage more and safer bicycling often at the expense - cost and delays - of the general public and especially motor vehicle users.
Pedal carefully but RideOn!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAEy9bH7ApAcxtd%3DdGLuJp5BA7KdRKtPiGM0L1C7YPb_EtdTH3A%40mail.gmail.com.

Serge Issakov

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 11:14:28 AM1/31/22
to Jim Baross, Cabo Forum, Gary Cziko, clint.sandusky
I’m good with “Same Roads Same Rules Same Rights" applying to bikes as much as it does to buses.  

Serge




Michael Graff

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 11:17:26 AM1/31/22
to Serge Issakov, Cabo Forum, michae...@pobox.com, petev...@cox.net
We’re assuming two chevrons means “go straight” but an officer or judge might just see the bike symbol in the turn lane.

I think Pete is right, adding some “green carpet” across the intersection would probably help clarify.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:10 AM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:
I never even considered that possibility!

But now that I think about, with the STRAIGHT sharrow chevron blatantly juxtaposed to the RTO arrow… probably not. 

Serge

William Sellin

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 11:36:35 AM1/31/22
to Jim Baross, Cabo Forum, Clint Sandusky, Gary Cziko, Serge Issakov
In Redondo Beach they chose to use 4 sharrows and shark teeth where a cycletrack is crossed by turning driveway traffic… instead of the green dashed conflict “extension” or "crossbike"

 



Crossbikes in Oklahoma, Portland Oregon & Seattle:


 


Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org


Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.
On Jan 31, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

The expanding justifications for the use of Sharrows is somewhat discouraging for the confusion resulting. What does a Sharrow communicate? Once and originally a message about available lane width to encourage door-zine avoidance and lane "control", to use for Way-finding on Bike Routes and through intersections, to now negating the requirements of a RTOL. 
Our old catch-phrase of "Same Roads Same Rules Same Rights" doesn't work any more. Now perhaps are times for "Some Roads Special Rules Superior Rights".
It seems that special accommodations for people bicycling (and walking) are being justified to encourage more and safer bicycling often at the expense - cost and delays - of the general public and especially motor vehicle users.
Pedal carefully but RideOn!

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 7:24 AM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:
<image_6483441.JPG>

clint.sandusky

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 12:37:34 PM1/31/22
to Jim Baross, Cabo Forum, Gary Cziko, Serge Issakov
So true Jim!

Now we have the second time around Bill AB 1713! (bicycles again are different)!

That said, I do hope AB 1713 passes, BUT there will need to be a lot of EDUCATION beforehand if it does!  I have a DRAFT PPP for AB 1713 to share with the CABO Board of Directors very soon...

Clint Sandusky

William Sellin

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 1:35:44 PM1/31/22
to Serge Issakov, Cabo Forum, Pete Van Nuys, Michael Graff
I think this location should not have ever been converted from a shared Biek Lane into a RTOL at all. 
No Arrows / No Sharrows. Sharrows belong in narrow travel lanes - not in shared bike lanes or crossbikes.
(or make the HILTON pay for a proper turn pocket & sidewalk shift to allow bike lane to extend left of the RTOL)

It SHOULD still be a ‘shared bike lane’ & get painted with 4 foot wide green ‘dashes’ (and it deserves a BIKE LANE sign instead of "no parking".)




Google lets us go back in time to see when changes were made…

\




Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org


Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.

Pete Penseyres

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 2:21:54 PM1/31/22
to Serge Issakov, William Sellin, Cabo Forum, Pete Van Nuys, Michael Graff
More than 1/3 of all car-bike crashes in Carlsbad are right hooks. This is based on my review of SWITRS data from 2014 to 2020 supplemented by use of Goggle Earth, and in some cases a redacted version of Crossroads to obtain the birds eye view of the collision site.
Carlsbad is considering using green paint in the same way shown in the photo where there is no room for a RTO lane with a Bike Lane to the left or on a street where a right turn is permitted but there is no RTO lane and the Bike Lane is dashed.
I am being told that the green paint is endorsed by ASHTO and such use of green paint reduces car-bike crashes. Is it true?
Please answer the following questions.
1.  Do you think the green paint encourages or discourages motorists from yielding to cyclists and moving as close to the curb or right hand edge of the road as practicable per the CVC?
2. If motorists are more likely to make an illegal right turn from the travel lane, do you think right hooks will be more or less likely with the skip dashed green paint?
3. Should this treatment receive a passing grade for MMLOS for bicyclists?
4. Are there any studies to support the answers to the above questions?

Pete Penseyres
League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #2020




--
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

Gary Cziko

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 3:31:56 PM1/31/22
to Pete Penseyres, Serge Issakov, William Sellin, Cabo Forum, Pete Van Nuys, Michael Graff
People,

I used to be a rather hard-core "same road, same rules" type of guy when it came to bicycling.
But I've come to realize that different rules for bicyclists can sometimes:

1. Increase convenience and/or safety for cyclists without decreasing the safety or convenience
of other road users.
  • Treating a STOP sign as a YIELD sign.
  • Continuing straight in a right-turn lane if it aligns with a bike lane or usable shoulder.
    • Especially compared to merging into a high-speed travel lane.

2. Increase convenience and/or safety for cyclists while increasing the safety or convenience
of other road users.
  • Having a group of cyclists treat an all-way STOP as a single vehicle.
I could probably think of other examples.

These are the same situations where I am likely to "fudge" the rules while cycling.

-- Gary


clint.sandusky

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 4:02:37 PM1/31/22
to gcz...@gmail.com, Pete Penseyres, Serge Issakov, William Sellin, Cabo Forum, Pete Van Nuys, Michael Graff
I hear you Gary!

This will also include some "Spirit of the Law" discretion by law enforcement.

Clint



Sent from my Galaxy


-------- Original message --------
From: Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com>
Date: 1/31/22 12:31 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Pete Penseyres <cyclo...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>, William Sellin <wase...@gmail.com>, Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>, Pete Van Nuys <petev...@cox.net>, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Cycling straight through a left- or right-turn lane

--
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.

Pete van Nuys

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 5:54:23 PM1/31/22
to cyclo...@yahoo.com, Cabo Forum

Pete,

1.) I do think green paint encourages motorist awareness of bicyclists. Does this by itself discourage right cross collisions?  No studies confirm this.

4.) Far as I know, no studies of the effect of green paint on motorist behavior exists at all. Please correct me....

2.) The motorist urge, called by Cycling Savvy the "must pass bicyclist" phenomenon, is not effected by green paint-- at least that's my supposition. I think green paint generally increases motorist awareness of the legitimacy of bicyclist on the street. But a motorist intent on passing a cyclist, then cutting right to save 8 seconds out of their journey, is a decision made at that time by the driver. I would be surprised if green paint had any influence on that decision.  But this is all speculation, right?

3. MIMLOS.... what are the alternatives? Throughout the EU cross-intersection paint-- red there, not green-- is common. Seems like the Western world is adopting this treatment. Should we ask that the intersection be lift blank? There is opportunity to influence this treatment as the solid vs. dashed vs. rectangular blocks and even the shades of green vary from agency to agency.

William Sellin

unread,
Jan 31, 2022, 8:32:55 PM1/31/22
to cyclo...@yahoo.com, Serge Issakov, Cabo Forum, Pete Van Nuys, Michael Graff
Hi Pete:

You said 
"Carlsbad is considering using green paint in the same way shown in the photo where there is no room for a RTO lane with a Bike Lane to the left or on a street where a right turn is permitted but there is no RTO lane and the Bike Lane is dashed. “

I don not know if Caltrans has examples of this treatment of the common Detail 39A.

One Caltrans drawing for future striping of PCH through Seal Beach had the following detail note:


It was differentiated from the “Extension” where a conflict / weave zone was called out:


The City of Santa Ana has applied the green treatment to Detail 39A intersection lines; here are 2 views of buffered bike lanes that are shared before the intersection for right turning traffic:
It looks like they followed the 4’ stripe & 8’ gap of the standard Detail 39A.







Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org


Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.
On Jan 31, 2022, at 11:21 AM, 'Pete Penseyres' via CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

More than 1/3 of all car-bike crashes in Carlsbad are right hooks. This is based on my review of SWITRS data from 2014 to 2020 supplemented by use of Goggle Earth, and in some cases a redacted version of Crossroads to obtain the birds eye view of the collision site.
Carlsbad is considering using green paint in the same way shown in the photo where there is no room for a RTO lane with a Bike Lane to the left or on a street where a right turn is permitted but there is no RTO lane and the Bike Lane is dashed.
I am being told that the green paint is endorsed by ASHTO and such use of green paint reduces car-bike crashes. Is it true?
Please answer the following questions.
1.  Do you think the green paint encourages or discourages motorists from yielding to cyclists and moving as close to the curb or right hand edge of the road as practicable per the CVC?
2. If motorists are more likely to make an illegal right turn from the travel lane, do you think right hooks will be more or less likely with the skip dashed green paint?
3. Should this treatment receive a passing grade for MMLOS for bicyclists?
4. Are there any studies to support the answers to the above questions?

Pete Penseyres
League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #2020




On Monday, January 31, 2022, 10:35:42 AM PST, William Sellin <wase...@gmail.com> wrote:


I think this location should not have ever been converted from a shared Biek Lane into a RTOL at all. 
No Arrows / No Sharrows. Sharrows belong in narrow travel lanes - not in shared bike lanes or crossbikes.
(or make the HILTON pay for a proper turn pocket & sidewalk shift to allow bike lane to extend left of the RTOL)

It SHOULD still be a ‘shared bike lane’ & get painted with 4 foot wide green ‘dashes’ (and it deserves a BIKE LANE sign instead of "no parking".)

<image_6483441 copy.JPG>

<Detail C-1 BL Intersection Line 39A w:green.png>


Google lets us go back in time to see when changes were made…

\
<Torry Pines Rd in SD.png>



<PastedGraphic-2.tiff>
Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org

<PastedGraphic-12.tiff>

Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.

On Jan 31, 2022, at 8:17 AM, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

We’re assuming two chevrons means “go straight” but an officer or judge might just see the bike symbol in the turn lane.

I think Pete is right, adding some “green carpet” across the intersection would probably help clarify.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:10 AM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:
I never even considered that possibility!

But now that I think about, with the STRAIGHT sharrow chevron blatantly juxtaposed to the RTO arrow… probably not. 

Serge

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:49 AM Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:
Would some people look at that marking and think “bicycles must turn right”?

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:39 AM Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

Resolved:
1.) sharrow is a traffic control device
2.) left of center position for straight through a RTO is the safest

On 1/31/2022 7:23 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:
<image_6483441.JPG>



On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:19 AM clint.sandusky <clint.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good point Serge, but in all the real life examples of this 2020 law I know of, it's always been at least the "except bicycles" sign (the most visible and practical).

Clint



Sent from my Galaxy


-------- Original message --------
From: Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>
Date: 1/30/22 10:54 PM (GMT-08:00)
Cc: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>, Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Cycling straight through a left- or right-turn lane

Clint and Gary et al,

22101(e)(1) refers to “an official traffic control device indicates that the movement is permitted.”  It says device, not sign.  A traffic control device may be a sign, but doesn’t have to be. 

I’ve seen traffic engineers use shared lane markings in right turn only lanes.  If I got a citation for riding straight from a right turn only lane with sharrows I’d argue each sharrow qualifies as  “an official traffic control device [which] indicates that the movement is permitted.”  I bet I’d win. 

Serge

--
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/EBB3FABD-E644-4845-B13B-DC7546F3DC0C%40gmail.com
.

--
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/2079999453.1941507.1643656875382%40mail.yahoo.com.
<image_6483441.JPG><PastedGraphic-12.tiff><PastedGraphic-2.tiff><Torry Pines Rd in SD.png><Detail C-1 BL Intersection Line 39A w:green.png><image_6483441 copy.JPG>

Alan Wachtel

unread,
Feb 1, 2022, 12:05:39 AM2/1/22
to cabo...@googlegroups.com

Pete Penseyres via CABOforum wrote:

Do you think the green paint encourages or discourages motorists from yielding to cyclists and moving as close to the curb or right hand edge of the road as practicable per the CVC?

FHWA's Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14) said:

FHWA Evaluation of Results: The Office of Transportation Operations has reviewed the available data and considers the experimental green colored pavement to be satisfactorily successful for the bicycle applications that were tested. Positive operational effects have been noted in the experiments, such as bicyclists positioning themselves more accurately as they travel across intersections and through conflict areas, and no notable negative operational effects have been observed. The research has also shown that bicyclists and motorists both have a positive impression of the effect of the green colored pavement, with bicyclists saying that they feel safer when the green colored pavement is present, and motorists saying that the green colored pavement gives them an increased awareness that bicyclists might be present and where those bicyclists are likely to be positioned within the traveled way.
I interpret this to mean that no one really knows, but it probably doesn't do any harm, and it makes people feel better.

~ Alan

Pete van Nuys

unread,
Feb 1, 2022, 1:40:18 PM2/1/22
to wac...@aol.com, Cabo Forum

Alan's parsing reflects years of experience with Caltrans waffling. Typical Sacramento: everyone "feels" green is the way t'go.

I feeeeeeel the same way.

--
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.

William Sellin

unread,
Feb 1, 2022, 3:00:00 PM2/1/22
to michae...@pobox.com, Cabo Forum
I agree = shared right turn for both vehicles and bicycles turning right - I would rather have seen a bike through arrow used in Caltran’s solution rather than a confusing use of sharrows





Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org


Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.
On Jan 31, 2022, at 7:49 AM, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

Would some people look at that marking and think “bicycles must turn right”?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:39 AM Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

Resolved:
1.) sharrow is a traffic control device
2.) left of center position for straight through a RTO is the safest

On 1/31/2022 7:23 AM, Serge Issakov wrote:
<image_6483441.JPG>

William Sellin

unread,
Feb 1, 2022, 3:00:14 PM2/1/22
to Pete Van Nuys, Pete Penseyres, Cabo Forum
I think the biggest advantage of the ‘green carpet’ treatment (as Michael called it) is that when there is NO cyclist on the road, the motorists still start to think about the potential of us being there…and that can only increase attentiveness when we are there next time they drive there.

In this particular location, a narrow shared bike lane was deemed insufficient for the priority of right turning vehicles, so the travel lanes were thinned, the bike lane was buffered and the shared portion (intersection line D39A) was made wide enough to fit a Hilton guest’s SUV.

Eventually some one decided to give the shared bike lane over to the Hilton as a RTOL… meaning until the 22101 was implemented, cyclists were supposed to merge out of the bike lane into the #3 travel lane right where right turning traffic was supposed to merge over into the RTOL. When 22101 was added the idea of putting sharrows down and giving us the option of rolling straight from the RTOL or merging into the #3 to proceed straight was inferred by the use of sharrows in the RTOL.

I think expecting the motorists to merge into the bike lane to turn right, as required in the CVC, and keeping the priority use of the bike lane for cyclists would have been better. The new green carpet treatment is to paint green bars to the right of the standard of 4’ dashed Detail 39A intersection line, If SD decided to use green in the lane, why not in the conflicted shared portion?   I’d rather have a smooth paved lane with green backed markings and then more green paint in intersection lines and conflict / weave zones where matters for all road users to pay more attention. 

As far as traffic control devices, markings and signs both are important. Signs are relatively cheap and effective, and when traffic covers up a marking, the sign is still visible adjacent to the road.
A sharrow is to designate a narrow TRAVEL lane where edge riding invites unsafe passing passing and door zone avoidance.  
It is not intended to be as special use directional arrow, nor to be used to guide across a conflict. 
Caltrans decided to re-purpose it in compliance with 22101’s requirement that they come up with something to control the permitting of cyclist to not obey the posted sign or arrow.
I hold that with out the sharrow and/or R118 sign, it is still illegal to choose to do what most of us do - stay in the RTOL even when going straight, especially where merging into the adjacent through lane means merging into very high speed traffic. 



Infrastructure Review Committee
      OCBike.org


Area Liaison for Caltrans District 12
      CABOBike.org

Among other case law and statutes, including the Constitution of California, 
we rely upon Williams v County of Sonoma (2020)* establishing the precedent 
that government entities have a duty to safely maintain roads.
Cyclists do NOT assume the risk of unreasonable road hazards created by government neglect.
*55 CalApp. 5th 125,269 Cal.Rptr. 3d 273, 220 Cal.App. LEXIS 909.

clint.sandusky

unread,
Feb 1, 2022, 3:00:14 PM2/1/22
to petev...@cox.net, Cabo Forum
Yes!!!



Sent from my Galaxy


-------- Original message --------
From: Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net>
Date: 1/31/22 7:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>

Serge Issakov

unread,
Feb 1, 2022, 3:00:14 PM2/1/22
to michae...@pobox.com, Cabo Forum, petev...@cox.net
I never even considered that possibility!

But now that I think about, with the STRAIGHT sharrow chevron blatantly juxtaposed to the RTO arrow… probably not. 

Serge
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 7:49 AM Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

Gary Cziko

unread,
Feb 11, 2022, 3:35:32 PM2/11/22
to clint.sandusky, Pete van Nuys, Cabo Forum
People,

Here's a good example from my morning's ride back home from SoFi Stadium (a local team is playing a post-season game there this weekend) in the Westchester neighborhood of Los Angeles where it makes sense to a cyclist to use a right-turn lane as a through lane.

image.png


You will see that there is a super-wide curb lane on the other side of the intersection. So merging out into the next lane left before the intersection would be both less convenient and less safe.

Although what I did was illegal according to the letter of the law, when a bicycling move is both more convenient and safer than being strictly legal, I will go for convenience and safety every time.

What would you do here?

-- Gary

clint.sandusky

unread,
Feb 11, 2022, 3:52:59 PM2/11/22
to Gary Cziko, Pete van Nuys, Cabo Forum
First of all Gary, Go LAR! 🏉

I certainly see your reasoning for how you handled this intersection, BUT not your execution (legally & visually to other bicyclists and roadway users)!

Additionally, you had a #2 Lane to control through the intersection, increasing sightlines for you and motorists.  This would have ALSO added to your predictably as a cyclist and roadway user.

I say, if this is of importance to you, contact the local authorities and suggest a CVC 22101(e)(1) exception.

Respectfully,

Clint





Sent from my Galaxy


-------- Original message --------
From: Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com>
Date: 2/11/22 12:35 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "clint.sandusky" <clint.s...@gmail.com>
Cc: Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net>, Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Cycling straight through a left- or right-turn lane

Judy Frankel

unread,
Feb 11, 2022, 5:45:30 PM2/11/22
to clint.sandusky, Gary Cziko, Pete van Nuys, Cabo Forum
W  

--
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

Judy Frankel

unread,
Feb 11, 2022, 5:45:36 PM2/11/22
to clint.sandusky, Gary Cziko, Pete van Nuys, Cabo Forum



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:53 PM, clint.sandusky 

--
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
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages