AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

[Jim Baross]

The process of effecting legislation has been described as similar to sausage making; messy and even disgusting at times, but the results matter.  

We are offered AB 2509 as introduced. We can certainly agree that CVC 21202 (and several other codes) could/should be modified, clarified, or deleted, but the window of opportunity is apparently only slightly open in this case. CABO will recommend deletion of CVC 21202, but will also offer support for AB 2509 if some cumbersome wording and errors can be addressed.

At this point we have a draft for a reworked AB 2509 rewording of CVC 21202. Your comments and recommendations are welcome... CABO member or not (yet).

Thank you Dave Snyder for updates - legislator likely to remove referring to "safe" from the text and other changes - and his offer to coordinate.

>>>>>>>>>> draft text >>>>>>>>>>>>

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21202.  

(a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway on which bicycling is not prohibited, or on a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable, as judged by the bicyclist, to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or bikeway.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply in any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, person, 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 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. (Shared Lane Markings are often used to indicate a substandard width lane.) 

(4) When approaching a place where a right or left turn is authorized.

(5) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (4), inclusive. (Persons riding two or more abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.)

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

[Michael Graff]

The new intro seems to require FTR in bike paths, bike lanes, and cycle tracks. This is a brand new restriction.

A person operating a bicycle ... on a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable...

[Jim Baross]

The original bill spoke to all classes of bikeways though excepting them from 21202 FTR requirements. In trying to also include these bikeways (they started this!), but to do so more accurately I included reference to them.... and since there are no rules for these I considered this a good time to include some.

On all classes of bikeways - Bike Paths, Cycletracks, Bike Routes, Bike Lanes - shouldn't people bicycling slower ride to the right, pass on the left, etc.? Let's say so.

>>>>>>>> AB 2509 as introduced >>>>>>>>>>

1

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended 

2to read:

3

21202.  

(a) begin deleteAny end deletebegin insertA end insertperson operating a bicycle upon a roadway 
4at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same 
5direction at that time shall ride as close asbegin insert is safe orend insert practicable to 
6the right-hand curb or edge of thebegin delete roadway except under any of 
7the following situations:end deletebegin insert roadway.end insert

begin insert

8(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply in any of the following 
9situations:

end insert

10(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle 
11proceeding in the same direction.

12(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a 
13private road or driveway.

14(3) When reasonably necessary to avoidbegin delete conditions (including,end delete 
15begin insertconditions, including,end insert but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, 
16vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or 
17substandard widthbegin delete lanes)end deletebegin insert lanes,end insert that make it unsafe to continue 
18along the right-hand curb or edge, subject tobegin delete the provisions ofend delete 
19Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width 
20lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to 
21travel safely side by side within the lane.

22(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

begin insert

23(5) When riding within a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway.

end insertbegin insert

24(6) When riding within a class III bikeway within the path of a 
25shared lane marking.

end insertbegin insert

26(7) When riding beside another bicycle in any situation 
27described in paragraphs 1 to 6, inclusive, or whenever riding 
28outside the path of vehicular travel in a lane.

end insertbegin delete

29(b)  Any

end delete

30begin insert(c)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertAend insert person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of abegin delete highway, 
31which highwayend deletebegin insert highway thatend insert carries traffic in one direction only 
32and has two or more marked trafficbegin delete lanes,end deletebegin insert lanesend insert may ride asbegin delete nearend delete 
33begin insertclose toend insert the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway asbegin insert is safe orend insert 
34practicable.

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

The new intro seems to require FTR in bike paths, bike lanes, and cycle tracks. This is a brand new restriction.

A person operating a bicycle ... on a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable...

--
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 post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[petev...@cox.net]

Jim,

 I don't like this passage:

(Persons riding two or more abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.)

 Seems to negate the whole purpose of including language permissive of two abreast.

‎ Also, is "laned" a word. I think it's a two lane road.

 And are parenthesis common in CVC? To show legislative intent?

Pete vN,
Exec. Dir. OCBC
Dist.12 Dir. CABO
949 492 5737

From: Jim Baross Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:18 AM To: Cabo Forum Reply To: jimb...@cox.net Subject: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

The process of effecting legislation has been described as similar to sausage making; messy and even disgusting at times, but the results matter.  

We are offered AB 2509 as introduced. We can certainly agree that CVC 21202 (and several other codes) could/should be modified, clarified, or deleted, but the window of opportunity is apparently only slightly open in this case. CABO will recommend deletion of CVC 21202, but will also offer support for AB 2509 if some cumbersome wording and errors can be addressed.

At this point we have a draft for a reworked AB 2509 rewording of CVC 21202. Your comments and recommendations are welcome... CABO member or not (yet).

Thank you Dave Snyder for updates - legislator likely to remove referring to "safe" from the text and other changes - and his offer to coordinate.

>>>>>>>>>> draft text >>>>>>>>>>>>

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21202.  

(a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway on which bicycling is not prohibited, or on a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable, as judged by the bicyclist, to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or bikeway.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply in any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, person, 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 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. (Shared Lane Markings are often used to indicate a substandard width lane.) 

(4) When approaching a place where a right or left turn is authorized.

(5) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (4), inclusive. (Persons riding two or more abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.)

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

[petev...@cox.net]

Jim,

 I  like this passage:

(Persons riding two or more abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.)

 Seems to negate the whole purpose of including language permissive of two abreast.

[Michael Graff]

Under today's 21202 (and 21208) I can ride anywhere within a bike lane without having to argue about exceptions. Faster cyclists can change lanes to pass.

I thought the idea was to make 21202 less restrictive, not more so. It's bad enough expecting us to share travel lanes side-by-side, now we have to share bike lanes side-by-side?

[Pete van Nuys]

Yes, FTR on bike paths is new.... but is it a bad thing?  Can we mandate peds walk FACING wheeled traffic? I vote for that!!!
  But "at less than the normal speed of traffic?" I guess that means the drunk cruiser riders have to stay left.... out of the way of speeding Class 4 e-bikers going 26mph. 

On 4/5/2016 11:30 AM, Michael Graff wrote:

The new intro seems to require FTR in bike paths, bike lanes, and cycle tracks. This is a brand new restriction.

A person operating a bicycle ... on a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable...

--
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 post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Pete van Nuys Exec. Dir. Orange County Bicycle Coalition ECI, LCI, CSI 949 492 5737

[CycleCA]

This makes sense to me. Standard practice on roads is slower traffic to the right, faster on the left, and passing on the left. Seems paths should be the same.

If there is not room for safe passing, slower traffic should move off the path when safe. Just like a road.

Bob Mack

-- 
Cycle California! Magazine
phone/fax 408-924-0270
toll free: 888-292-5323

www.CycleCalifornia.com
www.foundbybike.com
www.BE-ProConference.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/CycleCaliforniaMagazine
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CycleCAMag
Google+: google.com/+Cyclecalifornia
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/cycle-california-magazine

[Jim Baross]

Looks like that sentence will be dropped from our proposal.

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:56 AM, <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

Jim,

 I don't like this passage:

(Persons riding two or more abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.)

 Seems to negate the whole purpose of including language permissive of two abreast.

‎ Also, is "laned" a word. I think it's a two lane road.

 And are parenthesis common in CVC? To show legislative intent?

Pete vN,
Exec. Dir. OCBC
Dist.12 Dir. CABO
949 492 5737

From: Jim Baross Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:18 AM To: Cabo Forum Reply To: jimb...@cox.net Subject: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

The process of effecting legislation has been described as similar to sausage making; messy and even disgusting at times, but the results matter.  

We are offered AB 2509 as introduced. We can certainly agree that CVC 21202 (and several other codes) could/should be modified, clarified, or deleted, but the window of opportunity is apparently only slightly open in this case. CABO will recommend deletion of CVC 21202, but will also offer support for AB 2509 if some cumbersome wording and errors can be addressed.

At this point we have a draft for a reworked AB 2509 rewording of CVC 21202. Your comments and recommendations are welcome... CABO member or not (yet).

Thank you Dave Snyder for updates - legislator likely to remove referring to "safe" from the text and other changes - and his offer to coordinate.

>>>>>>>>>> draft text >>>>>>>>>>>>

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21202.  

(a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway on which bicycling is not prohibited, or on a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable, as judged by the bicyclist, to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or bikeway.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply in any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, person, 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 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. (Shared Lane Markings are often used to indicate a substandard width lane.) 

(4) When approaching a place where a right or left turn is authorized.

(5) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (4), inclusive. (Persons riding two or more abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.)

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

--
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 post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Graff]

Up to now, Class I paths have no CVC rules. Perhaps they should, but probably not as part of 21202. Instead, paths should be covered in the normal movement rules, like 21654.

And we need to distinguish laned paths from unlaned paths. If there's a centerline, the only requirement should be to use the right lane, not the right edge of the lane.

[Jim Baross]

There is no CVC direction about behavior in Cycle tracks (some will be two-way), Bike paths, and little for Bike Lanes regarding how same direction bicyclists should behave. I, and I expect you, would prefer people to pass on our left and to use the right-side portion of a bikeway for slower riding. Right? I, for one, would prefer some direction to and consistency from people sharing these facilities by bicycle. Here is a logical place to put it...

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

Under today's 21202 (and 21208) I can ride anywhere within a bike lane without having to argue about exceptions. Faster cyclists can change lanes to pass.

I thought the idea was to make 21202 less restrictive, not more so. It's bad enough expecting us to share travel lanes side-by-side, now we have to share bike lanes side-by-side?

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

[CycleCA]

I agree. Though is would be nice to have rules so people know not to drive on the left side of an unlined path. It should be the same as an unlined road - stay to the right.

Bob Mack

-- 
Cycle California! Magazine
phone/fax 408-924-0270

[Jim Baross]

21202 has been about bicyclists position in a roadway lane. I see no compelling reason - show me - why the same direction AND exceptions shouldn't also apply to Bikeways.

If someone would like to recommend - next year - also addressing 21654, 21208, 22400 or other CVC, please feel free to do so and/or to recommend someone else or organization do so. I do not think we'll have success at *high-jacking* another's bill for much other than their original intention. Ting's bill included bikeways and included errors about them. The current proposal corrects their errors and could help bring more order to bikeway behavior. IMHO. 

21654.  (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing
for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or
driveway.
   (b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is
not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation
of subdivision (a) of this section.
   (c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state
highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their
jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs
directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane
except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a
left turn.

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com> wrote:

Up to now, Class I paths have no CVC rules. Perhaps they should, but probably not as part of 21202. Instead, paths should be covered in the normal movement rules, like 21654.

And we need to distinguish laned paths from unlaned paths. If there's a centerline, the only requirement should be to use the right lane, not the right edge of the lane.

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Pete van Nuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

[Michael Graff]

The are two "slow" rules:

The normal "slow traffic" rule in 21654 that applies to all traffic. Rules for slow traffic *within* bikeways should go there.

The anti-cyclist "slow bike" rule in 21202 that gives motor traffic priority over cycle traffic. That's the one we're trying to repeal entirely, or at least defang. 

[petev...@cox.net]

Let me add to the bike path discussion that 1.) even a Cl. 1 built to standards is too narrow for two abreast on half the paved width, and 2.) therefore "it ought to be a law" that oncoming groups single the 5v€|< up before passing oncoming riders. Headon collisions are very serious, I know from witnessing 'em.

Pete vN,
Exec. Dir. OCBC
Dist.12 Dir. CABO
949 492 5737

From: CycleCA Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:59 AM To: cabo...@googlegroups.com Reply To: cyc...@cyclecalifornia.com Subject: Re: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

This makes sense to me. Standard practice on roads is slower traffic to the right, faster on the left, and passing on the left. Seems paths should be the same.

If there is not room for safe passing, slower traffic should move off the path when safe. Just like a road.

Bob Mack

-- 
Cycle California! Magazine
phone/fax 408-924-0270
toll free: 888-292-5323

www.CycleCalifornia.com
www.foundbybike.com
www.BE-ProConference.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/CycleCaliforniaMagazine
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CycleCAMag
Google+: google.com/+Cyclecalifornia
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/cycle-california-magazine

--

[Mark Nockleby]

Yes, we should not be adding new restrictions on cyclists' lane positioning in bike lanes. 

For instance, a cyclist in a wide bicycle lane may want to ride in the left portion of it to get better line of sight and to be more visible to other road users..... I'm pretty sure this was pointed out decades ago in John Forester  in Effective Cycling.

-mark.

[Jim Baross]

The proposed text does not prohibit or limit the.movement you describe, for bikeways or roadways... unless conflicting with another. Right?

On Apr 5, 2016 1:32 PM, "Mark Nockleby" <nock...@nocklebeast.net> wrote:

Yes, we should not be adding new restrictions on cyclists' lane positioning in bike lanes. 

For instance, a cyclist in a wide bicycle lane may want to ride in the left portion of it to get better line of sight and to be more visible to other road users..... I'm pretty sure this was pointed out decades ago in John Forester  in Effective Cycling.

-mark.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:26:17 PM UTC-7, Michael Graff wrote:

[Michael Graff]

That's pretty much my point. The bill was meant to reduce the use of 21202 for harassing cyclists. For example, charging cyclists for 21202 violations *within* a bike lane.

The original bill wording tried to exempt 21202 from applying to bikeways. This new wording tries to make 21202 apply to ALL bikeways.

If we want to add comprehensive movement rules for bikeways, that means updating the general CVC sections. That's a whole different can of worms.

[Michael Graff]

Unless conflicting with another ... cyclist? It's bad enough that 21202 allows (faster) motorists to force (slower) cyclists to share travel lanes. And it allows police to harass cyclists for trying to control unsharable lanes.

Now we also want faster cyclists to force slower cyclists to share bike lanes? Even when 21208 already allows (faster) cyclists to merge out of the bike lane to pass (slower) cyclists?

[Michael Graff]

That would be a bike-path version of 21650 (right side of roadway) not 21202.

[Serge Issakov]

Expanding 21202 to apply to bicyclists riding on bikeways would be inane - and exactly opposite of what AB2509 is (thankfully) attempting to do.

The idea of expanding the (real) rules of the road (like 21650) to bikeways is arguably a valiant thing to do, but really has nothing to do with this bill. Just because they mentioned bikeways in this bill is certainly no reason for it.  They mentioned bikeways only in the context of clarifying that 21202 does NOT apply to bicyclists on bikeways.

This is what AB2509 proposes:

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended 
2  to read:

3

21202.  

(a) Any A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway 

4at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same 

5direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to 
6the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

8(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply in any of the following 
9situations:

10(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle 

11proceeding in the same direction.

12(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a 
13private road or driveway.

14(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, 
15conditions, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, 

16vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or 

17substandard widthlanes) lanes, that make it unsafe to continue 
18along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of

19Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width 
20lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to 
21travel safely side by side within the lane.

22(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

23(5) When riding within a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway.

24(6) When riding within a class III bikeway within the path of a 
25shared lane marking.

26(7) When riding beside another bicycle in any situation 

27described in paragraphs 1 to 6, inclusive, or whenever riding 
28outside the path of vehicular travel in a lane.

29(b)  Any

30(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, 
31which highway highway that carries traffic in one direction only 
32and has two or more marked traffic lanes, lanes may ride as near
33close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as is safe or
34practicable.

This is what I have suggested instead:

3

21202.  

(a) Any A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway 

4at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same 

5direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to 
6the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

8(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply in any of the following 
9situations:

10(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle 

11proceeding in the same direction.

12(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a 
13private road or driveway.

(3) Whenever traveling within a lane that is too narrow for a

bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane,

or any lane less than 16 feet in width, subject to Section 21656.

14(4) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but

not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,

animals, or surface hazards, that make it unsafe to continue

along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to Section 21656.

22(5) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

23(6) When riding within a class I, class II, or class IV bikeway.

24(7) When riding within a travel lane containing 
25shared lane markings or adjacent to Bikes May Use Full Lane signs.

26(8) When riding beside another bicycle in any situation 
27described in paragraphs 1 to 7, inclusive, or whenever riding 

28outside the path of vehicular travel in a lane.

29(b)  Any

30(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, 
31which highway highway that carries traffic in one direction only 
32and has two or more marked traffic lanes, lanes may ride as near
33close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as is safe or
34practicable.

Serge

[John Forester]

I have read the message below and several comments upon it.

First: If the proposal is accepted, then you must have a comma as shown after "class IV bikeway," or else the qualifying clause "at a speed less than .... " will not apply to normal roadways.

Second: Consider Ting's, and our, problem. Cyclists were cited for riding two abreast in a Class II bikelane. The simplest way to solve this problem is to except Class II bikelanes. With the proposed new wording, just delete the class I and the class IV bikeways.

Or, even simpler, add a new exception to the existing 21202.

(5) When operating in a class II bikeway (bikelane).

I know that the problem is because some police choose to ignore the exceptions in 21202. However, there is a difference between an exception which appears to increase cyclists' freedom and one that obviously limits police power. For that matter, number the new exception (1), to make it more prominent, and renumber the others.

Yes, several of you have expressed the desire to have FTR laws operating on bike paths and Class IVs. You may well get such laws enacted (foolishness abounds), but you will not get them enforced and unenforced traffic laws are nothing but trouble. The problem is that the public will not accept vehicle-style laws on facilities that they see as "vehicle free". Has that not been obvious for decades? Furthermore, you don't yet know the problems of traffic control on Class IVs, because there haven't been enough of them around with sufficient use to determine the as yet unanticipated problems in addition to the already anticipated problems.

--
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 post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945
619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com

[John Forester]

If it is desired to produce a set of traffic laws for bike paths, this should be done only as a result of profound study including adaptations of the standard traffic laws that we already are familiar with. Attempting this without such a study will only cause a host of problems.

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945
619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com

[MaggieO]

Jim, you asked:

"On all classes of bikeways - Bike Paths, Cycletracks, Bike Routes, Bike Lanes - shouldn't people bicycling slower ride to the right, pass on the left, etc.? Let's say so."

Answer: No, because I don't know of any bike lanes or bike paths (those with CLs are usually 4' or 5' on each side) that are wide enough for a faster cyclist to pass within the lane, and it appears that the minimum width for cycletracks will not be wide enough for passing within the cycletrack. Even if there is a 8' bike lane, if it's next to parking, the rightmost 4' is the door zone. People who don't understand the DZ hazard would expect cyclists to ride in the door zone. In addition, a cyclist in front should not have to worry about another cyclist passing them within the lane if they need to move left or right within the lane to avoid a hazard. Passing Motorists are not expected to drive FTR and check behind them before adjusting their position within their lane, to let other motorists, motorcyclists or bicyclists to pass them within the lane.  Passing is done in an adjacent lane. I pass slower cyclists in bike lanes by merging into the traffic lane. It's a bad idea to let motorists own their lane but expect cyclists to ride FTR on laned bike paths, or in bike lanes. 

Whenever I can't avoid using Sacramento streets with bike lanes next to parking (all Sacto BLs next to parking are DZBLs), I usually ride ON the BL line or an inch or two to the right.  If this  bill becomes law, a cop could pull me over for not riding in the middle or right part of the BL.  In a curbside BL, a cop could say I'm not riding far enough to the right even though in my opinion there are surface/debris issues but from what the cop can see from a car, the surface is acceptable, until he stopped and took a closer look.  Even if he says, "OK", you're right", my time spent explaining it to him is time lost to me.  Remember the cyclist  that was repeatedly cited for not using a shoulder in terrible condition?

Maggie

---

From: Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>
To: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>
Cc: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:50 AM

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

The original bill spoke to all classes of bikeways though excepting them from 21202 FTR requirements. In trying to also include these bikeways (they started this!), but to do so more accurately I included reference to them.... and since there are no rules for these I considered this a good time to include some.

On all classes of bikeways - Bike Paths, Cycletracks, Bike Routes, Bike Lanes - shouldn't people bicycling slower ride to the right, pass on the left, etc.? Let's say so.

>>>>>>>> AB 2509 as introduced >>>>>>>>>>

1

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended 
2to read:

3

21202.  

(a) begin deleteAny end deletebegin insertA end insert person operating a bicycle upon a roadway 

[MaggieO]

I agree with Michael.

---

From: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>
To: Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>
Cc: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>; Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:58 AM

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

Under today's 21202 (and 21208) I can ride anywhere within a bike lane without having to argue about exceptions. Faster cyclists can change lanes to pass.

I thought the idea was to make 21202 less restrictive, not more so. It's bad enough expecting us to share travel lanes side-by-side, now we have to share bike lanes side-by-side?

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

The original bill spoke to all classes of bikeways though excepting them from 21202 FTR requirements. In trying to also include these bikeways (they started this!), but to do so more accurately I included reference to them.... and since there are no rules for these I considered this a good time to include some.

On all classes of bikeways - Bike Paths, Cycletracks, Bike Routes, Bike Lanes - shouldn't people bicycling slower ride to the right, pass on the left, etc.? Let's say so.

>>>>>>>> AB 2509 as introduced >>>>>>>>>>

1

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended 
2to read:

3

21202.  

(a) begin deleteAny end deletebegin insertA end insert person operating a bicycle upon a roadway 

[MaggieO]

Yes, Pete, is does negate the purpose.  And it increases the ability of police to accuse cyclists of "impeding" by explicitly applying it to bicyclists. Currently, bicyclists can argue that the "impeding" section (22400) was never meant to apply to bicyclists.

---

From: "petev...@cox.net" <petev...@cox.net>
To: Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>; Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

[Jim Baross]

Ok, I got it. Reference to 21202 applicable to Bikeways is removed from my drafts. CABO Directors are still reviewing the next drafts.

Jim Baross

CABO President

Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:37 PM, MaggieO <iris...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jim, you asked:

"On all classes of bikeways - Bike Paths, Cycletracks, Bike Routes, Bike Lanes - shouldn't people bicycling slower ride to the right, pass on the left, etc.? Let's say so."

Answer: No, because I don't know of any bike lanes or bike paths (those with CLs are usually 4' or 5' on each side) that are wide enough for a faster cyclist to pass within the lane, and it appears that the minimum width for cycletracks will not be wide enough for passing within the cycletrack. Even if there is a 8' bike lane, if it's next to parking, the rightmost 4' is the door zone. People who don't understand the DZ hazard would expect cyclists to ride in the door zone. In addition, a cyclist in front should not have to worry about another cyclist passing them within the lane if they need to move left or right within the lane to avoid a hazard. Passing Motorists are not expected to drive FTR and check behind them before adjusting their position within their lane, to let other motorists, motorcyclists or bicyclists to pass them within the lane.  Passing is done in an adjacent lane. I pass slower cyclists in bike lanes by merging into the traffic lane. It's a bad idea to let motorists own their lane but expect cyclists to ride FTR on laned bike paths, or in bike lanes. 

Whenever I can't avoid using Sacramento streets with bike lanes next to parking (all Sacto BLs next to parking are DZBLs), I usually ride ON the BL line or an inch or two to the right.  If this  bill becomes law, a cop could pull me over for not riding in the middle or right part of the BL.  In a curbside BL, a cop could say I'm not riding far enough to the right even though in my opinion there are surface/debris issues but from what the cop can see from a car, the surface is acceptable, until he stopped and took a closer look.  Even if he says, "OK", you're right", my time spent explaining it to him is time lost to me.  Remember the cyclist  that was repeatedly cited for not using a shoulder in terrible condition?

Maggie

---

From: Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net>
To: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>

Cc: Cabo Forum <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 11:50 AM

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

The original bill spoke to all classes of bikeways though excepting them from 21202 FTR requirements. In trying to also include these bikeways (they started this!), but to do so more accurately I included reference to them.... and since there are no rules for these I considered this a good time to include some.

On all classes of bikeways - Bike Paths, Cycletracks, Bike Routes, Bike Lanes - shouldn't people bicycling slower ride to the right, pass on the left, etc.? Let's say so.

>>>>>>>> AB 2509 as introduced >>>>>>>>>>

1

SECTION 1.  

Section 21202 of the Vehicle Code is amended 
2to read:

3

21202.  

(a) begin deleteAny end deletebegin insertA end insert person operating a bicycle upon a roadway 

[Judy Frankel]

Someone was actually given a ticket for not riding far to the right inside a bike lane and the citation was held up in traffic court. (2 abreast)  They were riding close to the lane line

 

Far to the right doesn’t and should not apply in bike lanes.  A car gets to use the whole travel lane.  A cyclist gets to use the whole bike lane.. and  faster cyclists should change lanes to pass.   Riding 2 abreast in a bike lane is not prohibited but doesn’t work well in minimum standard bike lanes.. and when bike lanes are wider you usually are riding next to someone you know and can communicate with if you need to move over to avoid an obstruction.

 

A more specific law 21208 applies and overrides 21202.    But, courts do not know this.  Should it be stated that 21202 does not apply to bike lanes?

 

Judy 

[Judy Frankel]

Here is work that has already been done with suggestions for changes to the UVC

 

http://john-s-allen.com/UVC/

[MaggieO]

Agree with John.

I wonder when transportation agencies and police will realize that there are no CVC provisions that apply to Class IV bikeways?  How will police apply fault in crashes, e.g. between turning motorists and through cyclists,  when there's no CVC provision to put on the citation?  There's no law requiring right turning traffic to yield to through traffic in Class IVs.  God forbid the CVC is amended to give local agencies the authority to regulate Class IV operation.

I'm convinced that Caltrans staff are unaware that the CVC doesn't address Class IVs and don't understood why CVC provisions should have been in place before publishing standards.  Just like the folks who sponsored the Class IV bill.  Design and operational standards are supposed to support CVC provisions for a facility.  But there aren't any! 

Maggie

---

From: John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
To: cabo...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 3:13 PM

Subject: Re: [CABOforum] AB 2509 re: CVC 21202

[Serge Issakov]

Still a draft...  Closer?  Judy, see (b)(6).

(a) A 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.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any person operating a bicycle in 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 traveling in a lane that is too narrow for a vehicle to safely pass the bicycle within the lane with at least three feet of clearance.

(4) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to Section 21656, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, and surface hazards.

(5) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(6) When riding within a bike lane.

(7) When riding within a travel lane containing shared lane markings or adjacent to Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs.

(8) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (7), inclusive.

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable. 

[Michael Graff]

For that matter, what are the movement rules for buffered bike lanes? They're not quite Class II, not quite Class IV.

I currently ignore the buffer and treat them like ordinary bike lanes (CVC 21208 and 21209).

[Alan Wachtel]

Serge Issakov wrote:

(a) A 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.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any person operating a bicycle in 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 traveling in a lane that is too narrow for a vehicle to safely pass the bicycle within the lane with at least three feet of clearance.

(4) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to Section 21656, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, and surface hazards.

(5) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(6) When riding within a bike lane.

(7) When riding within a travel lane containing shared lane markings or adjacent to Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs.

(8) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (7), inclusive.

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable. 

I had a keyword notification for "bicycle" set up at LegInfo that unaccountably missed this bill (and a number of others). I also haven't been following the very lengthy discussions on it. So I apologize for any duplication.

In the original bill, the word "safe" in (a) and (c) adds nothing but confusion. "Practicable" already means safe and reasonable. People are not good at parsing disjunctions. Although this may be meant to offer a choice, "as close as is safe or practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" is certain to be interpreted by some police officers as "as far right as I think is safe," whether or not it's practicable, or "as far right as I think is practicable," whether or not it's safe. If this has to be there, it needs to be an "and."

According to the California MUTCD, the shared lane marking is intended (among other things) "to assist bicyclists with lateral positioning." It's only a suggestion, meant to keep bicyclists from riding too far to the right, not to restrict their position within the lane. "Within the path of a shared lane marking" is wrong. (Shared lane markings aren't limited to Class III bikeways, either.)

Class I and Class IV--no, no, no! This section applies on its face "upon a roadway." Class I and Class IV facilities are not part of the roadway, and no should be allowed to think that they might be, but require exceptions.

I like Serge's wording, but a few minor comments:

In (b), "any person" should probably be "a person" to match the new language in (a).

In (b)(6), make that "a bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207" (similar language is used in §21207 itself and §§21207.5, 21208, and 21209). Lots of people aren't sure what a bike lane is.

In (b)(7), "adjacent" is too restrictive. I suggest something like "where an official traffic control device indicates that a lane is a shared lane or that bicycles may use the full lane." It's probably better not to be unnecessarily precise.

~ Alan

[Serge Issakov]

Thanks, Alan.  That gives us the language below in blue.  It's late but I just had another thought.  The whole "close as practicable to the right" language is wrong even in the rare instances where it applies.  After all, all that really should be required in lanes wide enough for side-by-side sharing within the lane, is that the cyclist ride far enough right to allow motorists room to safely pass within the lane.  In other words, Forester's "3 feet to the right of overtaking traffic".  So the opening could maybe be something like this:

(a) A 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 within a lane wide enough for safe passing by vehicles with at least 3 feet of clearance within the lane shall ride far enough right to allow for such passing.

Anyway, the previous language, with Alan's suggestions incorporated:

(a) A 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.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person operating a bicycle in 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 traveling in a lane that is too narrow for a vehicle to safely pass the bicycle within the lane with at least three feet of clearance.

(4) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to Section 21656, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, and surface hazards.

(5) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(6) When riding within a bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207.

(7) When riding within a travel lane where an official traffic control device indicates that the lane is a shared lane or that bicycles may use the full lane.

(8) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (7), inclusive.

(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable. 

Serge

[Alan Wachtel]

Serge Issakov wrote:

So the opening could maybe be something like this:

(a)  A 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 within a lane wide enough for safe passing by vehicles with at least 3 feet of clearance within the lane shall ride far enough right to allow for such passing.

Take a look at the LAB's Model Where to Ride Law:

(1) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic shall ride in the right hand lane of the roadway subject to the following provisions:
   (a) If the right hand lane is wide enough to be safely shared with overtaking vehicles, a person operating a bicycle shall ride far enough to the right as judged safe by the bicyclist to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless other conditions make it unsafe to do so.
   (b) A person operating a bicycle may use a lane other than the right hand lane when:
        (i) Overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
        (ii) Preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
        (iii) Reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or lanes that are too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within such lanes;
        (iv) Approaching an intersection where right turns are permitted and there is a dedicated right turn lane, in which case a bicyclist may ride on the left-hand side of such dedicated lane, even if the bicyclist does not intend to turn right;
        (v) Riding on a roadway designated for one-way traffic, when the bicyclist may ride as near to the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as judged safe by the bicyclist; or
        (vi) Riding on parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, including, but not limited to, contra-flow bicycle lanes, left-handed cycle tracks or bicycle lanes on one-way streets and two-way cycle tracks or bicycle lanes.

(2) A person operating a bicycle shall not be expected or required to:
    (a) Ride over or through hazards at the edge of a roadway, including but not limited to fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow lanes; or
    (b) Ride without a reasonable safety margin on the right-hand side of the roadway.

(3) A person operating a bicycle in compliance with this section and not violating any other section of law is not impeding traffic.

The original hierarchy isn't entirely clear, so I've renumbered it in accordance with what I think is the intent (though this numbering would need to be altered to conform to California's conventions).

I'm all for something like this. It's a question of whether CBC, Ting, and the Legislature can be made to go for it (especially at this late date). But there might be parts of it that we can use.

~ Alan

[Michael Graff]

Yes, something like this. That's similar to the concept I posted a few weeks ago. The real point of this law is the very limited conditions where same-lane overtaking is required.

In the CVC, this should probably be 21654.1 instead of 21202. If we must have a same-lane-overtaking rule, it should be a general rule for all slow traffic, not just bicycle traffic.

I suppose the logic in (1)(a) is a bit circular: "as judged safe by the bicyclist...unless other conditions make it unsafe". I think this means a cyclist violates the law if they're too far right.

--

[MaggieO]

According to the Caltrans HQ Traffic Ops staff that put the buffered bike lane guidance in the CA MUTCD, that's exactly what you should do.  They said that all of the buffer patterns mean the same thing - they're legally crossable.  Of course when you apply that statement to the figures, the figures don't make sense.  No human factors studies were done to determine how the traveling public interpret the striping patterns.

---

From: Michael Graff <michae...@pobox.com>

To: Maggie O'Mara Home <iris...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "fore...@johnforester.com" <fore...@johnforester.com>; "cabo...@googlegroups.com" <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [CABOforum] Traffic Operations and Class IV bikeways.