was ebike chart now horses?

[John F. Hess]

Hiya,

Interesting post from Paul about a horse on the shoulder.  Many years ago (10-15?), I passed a man walking with 3 donkeys in the protected bike path on the causeway, I80 between Davis and Sacramento.  I later read in the local paper that he had continued walking west and was arrested in Napa, IIRC, for causing a disturbance or disregarding an officer's instructions while crossing a narrow bridge.  At the time, I googled him and sure enough found out he was somewhat known.

Fast forward to this week when the local Davis Bike Club email list was a buzz with an incident involving cyclists and a horse on the road.  Seems that a few cyclists had come up on the horse from behind, the horse spooked and fell and the cyclists rode away.  The horse was taken to UCD where it was treated for a knee injury.  Consensus of opinion was that cyclists should call out when approaching horses since horses can spook and from behind seems to evoke some sort of primal "Oh crap there's a predator behind me" response.  This was a twist on the usual refrain in town of cyclists on greenbelts not calling out and buzzing and/or scaring pedestrians.

It's crappy smoky here, 15-30 miles from the fires around Vacaville and Berryessa.  Take care, 

--

John F Hess  Davis, CA
john...@gmail.com

[Jim Baross]

Are equestrians in the pedestrian category? I seem to recall that equestrians had the same type 21200 rights and responsibilities as bicyclists.

--
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/CABz2mpvP%2BAk0Tq_8dthHvsGGgTAGrwCXBrkJo3gc371gUB0ymg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob Shanteau]

Equestrians have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles.

CVC 21050. Every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division and Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXf-7fD_tsM-5WjT%2B7CsbBed_cdJMJrzPfXxXzcGR2f5Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bob Shanteau]

By CVC 21200, bicyclists are subject to this section:

CVC 21759. The driver of any vehicle approaching any horse drawn vehicle, any ridden animal, or any livestock shall exercise proper control of his vehicle and shall reduce speed or stop as may appear necessary or as may be signalled or otherwise requested by any person driving, riding or in charge of the animal or livestock in order to avoid frightening and to safeguard the animal or livestock and to insure the safety of any person driving or riding the animal or in charge of the livestock.

[Gary Cziko]

Bob,

And note that 21050 is not limited to equestrians as no animal is specified. And does "driving an animal" necessarily imply being pulled by an animal using a wheeled cart of some type? That would make sense, although cowboys drive cattle without wheels, staying on their horses.

Also, as far as I can see, there is no far-to-the right requirement for animal riders and drivers, or mandatory animal lane use laws.

I'm tempted to get one of these contraptions and some huskies to exercise my full-lane animal-driving rights!

But then do I have to stop to scoop the poop?

-- Gary

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAObDU8r2hGcqFWp1QRmwcPFGFWCbhxVOhfZwm6jOdU5WnvdJ2Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

Why can’t we just get rid of 21202 and 21208 and model 21200 after the much simpler 21050?

21050.  

Every person riding or driving an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division and Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_Ywsnar7tA_Tn6B5znWuw1s9H9qV485hv%2BUiUdpSP75hGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

Duh, it is unlikely that 21202 and 21208 can be easily be removed because - yes, this is my supposition - most people and the agencies overseeing traffic behavior do not want people bicycling to be encouraged to be in the way.

[Bob Shanteau]

Indeed, "driving" an animal does not imply driving a wheeled conveyance but includes herding animals on foot or astride another animal, such as a horse. The CHP doesn't care that a shepherd on foot or a cowboy on horseback traveling along a highway is a driver with the same right to use the roadway because there are no such shepherds or cowboys. In fact, the Vehicle Code has since the 1920's defined streets and highways as being public ways intended for vehicular travel with operators of bicycles and drivers of animals not as primary users but as tolerated guests. That's why neither a bike path nor a cattle trail nor a bridle path is considered a street or highway. 

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:20 PM Gary Cziko <gcz...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Gary Cziko]

Bob,

So if a shepherd is a driver in California, How about walking a dog 🐕?

If that’s driving an animal, I may not need the land sled and team of huskies to exercise my unmotorized, unconditional full-lane rights in California in a way I can’t do here on a bicycle. 

Gary

--

Gary Cziko ("ZEE-ko"), Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)

Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (ABEA.bike)

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABObike.org)

Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

Author:

Without Miracles: Universal Selection Theory and the Second Darwinian Revolution (MIT Press, 1995)

The Things We Do: Using the Lessons of Bernard and Darwin to Understand the What, How, and Why of Our Behavior (MIT Press, 2000)

[John Cinatl]

Hi Gang...............

Here is another section that I found in the CVC relating to equestrians.

21805 (a) The Department of Transportation, and local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may designate any intersection of a highway as a bridle path or equestrian crossing by erecting appropriate signs.  The signs shall be erected on the highway at or near the approach to the intersection, and shall be of a type approved by the Department of Transportation.  The signs shall indicate the crossing and any crossmarks, safety devices, or signals the authorities deem necessary to safeguard vehicular and equestrian traffic at the intersection.

(b) The driver of any vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to any horseback rider who is crossing the highway at any designated equestrian crossing which is marked by signs as prescribed in subdivision (a).

(c) Subdivision (b) does not relieve any horseback rider from the duty of using due care for his or her own safety. No horseback rider shall leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed suddenly into the path of a vehicle which is close enough to constitute an immediate hazard

JOhn Cinatl

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAObDU8pTEz3sOMJHa6HoU5pmjNBZwfOEeYGjALmr4Pc-JL_Vuw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Alan Wachtel]

From at least 1939 until 1963 (I can't easily check earlier), §21050 read almost exactly as it does now, except that it applied to "Every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving an animal upon a highway" (italics added). In other words, the operation of bicycles and horses was treated identically. In 1963, the provision regulating bicycles was split off into §21200, and that's also when special rules for bicycles like §21202 began to be added.

~ Alan

[Gary Cziko]

Alan,

Very interesting finding--good legal sleuthing!

Anyone have a clue why bicycles were pushed over to 21200 when 21202 (FTR) and 21208 (MBL) were added? Why couldn't the restrictions on bicycles be added while bikes were still with the animals in 21050?

-- Gary

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 5:39 PM 'Alan Wachtel' via CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

From at least 1939 until 1963 (I can't easily check earlier), §21050 read almost exactly as it does now, except that it applied to "Every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving an animal upon a highway" (italics added). In other words, the operation of bicycles and horses was treated identically. In 1963, the provision regulating bicycles was split off into §21200, and that's also when special rules for bicycles like §21202 began to be added.

~ 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/11deea4e-36f8-3966-4c3a-2e7ad1f2daf7%40aol.com.

[Jim Baross]

Interesting.

But an alternative question could be asked too. Why aren't drivers of animals subject to provisions similar to 21202?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YyfsnYjJU%2BzMgcXFHuOJ0d3DsNNWv9VSa70T4aiWA5UmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alan Wachtel]

Gary Cziko wrote:

Very interesting finding--good legal sleuthing!

Anyone have a clue why bicycles were pushed over to 21200 when 21202 (FTR) and 21208 (MBL) were added? Why couldn't the restrictions on bicycles be added while bikes were still with the animals in 21050?

BTW, §21208 (MBL) came later (1976), because bike lanes came later.

Without a clear record, it's hard to know what people were thinking in 1963. But I see that California didn't pioneer these laws.

The Uniform Vehicle Code, a model code that has no legal force but is meant to serve as an example of best practices, added its provision regulating bicycles and animals together in 1930. Prior to that, both bicycles and animals were considered vehicles. They were separated in 1938, and at the same time a FTR provision for bicycles was added. But I can't locate any reasoning for these decisions.

~ Alan

[volar....@gmail.com]

You should look up how the concept of "jaywalking" got formalized.  You can also blame Herbert Hoover, an engineer by profession, for coming up with (automobile-stacked) committees responsible for the formulation of Model Municipal Traffic Ordinances (MTO).  The full annotated (MTO) ordinances are available at hathitrust.org.

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history