Fwd: The upcoming CTCDC Meeting (2026 CA MUTCD Focus Meeting) will be this Thursday, October 2, 2025.

[Jim Baross]

Hi Josh

I noticed that the next CTCDC meeting is this week. Who will be attending? I'll look into the possibility of observing, if not contributing.

I am typing up some things I'm wondering about. (My afternoon musings have come up with six items.)

I have mentioned some MUTCD concerns before, but I haven't been able to keep up with the CTCDC and MUTCD progress. 

Do you (or anyone copied on this message) happen to have any updates to share or recommendations for implementing the issues/ideas below?

Thanks.

1. Will California's Sharrows guidance continue to include the California-specific allowance/exception allowing Sharrows placement, with limitations, on roads with higher posted speed limits? (This despite the prohibition recently enacted.)

Per the CA-MUTCD, "Option: 02a The Shared Lane Marking may be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph, where there is bicycle

travel and there is no marked bicycle lane and the right-hand traffic lane is too narrow to allow motor vehicles to safely pass bicyclists."

2. Will we get signage and pavement markings into the CA-MUTCD for Class IVs that distinguish Class IV from Class II? Or even informational text included that bicycling in Class IV is optional, so adjacent roadway space should also accommodate bicycling? (Choice matters)

3. Will the new info signs and guidance for bicyclists' lawful access to certain freeway shoulders be included? (Related question: May we assume that Electric Bicycles are included with Bicycles when freeway shoulder access is not prohibited, even though Electric Bicycles have motors?)

4. Will the new Fed. sign about bikes' full lane use be adopted, or will California want to stay with the existing text? I hope that if the new one is adopted, the old ones won't need to be replaced.

5. Is there or will there be better, more inclusive guidance included for Class IV's pavement, signs, separate traffic signals, or other warning devices to inform bicyclists and motorists about the approach to intersections, including driveways and alleys? Reinforcing/telling everyone that bicyclists may choose to use the adjacent lanes rather than be directed to stay in the Class IV? It is helpful when bicyclists are provided with options, not barriers, for leaving the Class IV lane to merge for straight-through or left-turn positioning approaching intersections of all types. 

6. Is Guidance clear that since bicyclists who may not be using the Class IV or Class II bikeway approaching an intersection are not to be controlled by the separate traffic signal for the adjacent Bikeway? In other words, when traffic signals are used to control movements/assign priorities at an intersection and a separate traffic signal phase is in place for bicyclists using a Class IV or Class II bikeway, the bicyclists using the adjacent general travel lanes are not subject to the bicycle-only signal. Design guidance for intersection design and traffic controls should account for bicycle movements in general travel lanes.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Jim Baross

CABO President

(League Board member until Wednesday)

[Pete Penseyres]

Hi Josh, 

I agree with all of Jim's list but am most concerned about Item 6. 

The Class II Bike Lane WB on Manchester is to the right of 2 RTO Lanes! John Howard made a presentation at the 3rd quarter BPAC meeting asking for sharrows in the rightmost through lane, where they existed during construction. 

My own experience using the Manchester Bike Lane was with a group that found us waiting for a tiny green bike light and white Ped light (We pushed both of the Beg buttons). When we got our turn, two drivers facing the red (No turns on Red) light never slowed down and cut us off. Finally, one of the riders who had started and then stopped held up his arm to stop the flow, and we all survived the crossing.

I have been using the rightmost through lane (#2) on Palomar Airport Road to ride WB across the I-5 to Carlsbad Blvd. 

Now there are sharrows in the wrong lanes until the new Green Bike Lane dead ends at the Southbound I-5 entrance where they suddenly jump from the right side of the Right Turn Only Lane to the #2 lane that I have been using for almost 10 years. See the video below.

PAR over I5 front view after CalTrans Green Bike Lanes

PAR over I5 front view after CalTrans Green Bike Lanes

I haven't been harassed in the past, but without Sharrows in the #2 lane, I am concerned that motorists, and the CHP, will expect me to be in the new partially green Class II Bike Lane in accordance with CVC 21208. 

On PAR, the #2 lane is the least used by motorists because the vast majority are entering the freeway or turning onto Avenida Encinas. And motorists can pass on either side and return if their destination is Carlsbad Blvd.

Here is a recent video using the same method of a right turn, u-turn, and right turn to access the #2 lane from the rear facing camera:

PAR over I5 rear view after CalTrans Green Bike Lanes

PAR over I5 rear view after CalTrans Green Bike Lanes

I have also made the lateral shift without using the right-U-right at Paseo Del Norte by waiting for a gap after passing the Costco Exit at Armada. Sharrows should start there before the #3 and #4 lanes are marked with the colored I-5 markings.

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXe673GLbEZ4K091zuVVbt6%2Bw3_kx9%2BTyoEUzkiN-KdGnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lucas Kurlan]

819.9(a) of the new bill might allow them to place them there since it's near an intersection? Also, you are within your rights to leave the bike lane anywhere right turns are allowed, including there (21208(a)(3) and 21208(a)(4)). 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/893864335.1169539.1759201153895%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Serge Issakov]

The San Diego Bicycle Club has 7 different Saturday group rides -- A, B, C, D1, D2, D3, and D4 -- from fastest to shortest/slowest. Only D3 takes Manchester. We use the #1 lane, and get in it very early, a few hundred yards before the gas station, to get left of all the traffic headed for I-5 North and South.

Serge

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 7:59 PM 'Pete Penseyres' via CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/893864335.1169539.1759201153895%40mail.yahoo.com.

[John Eldon]

All the more reason that it is a miracle that CalTrans facilitated our bicycle-friendly configuration on w/b Encinitas Bl. at I-5. Now all we need is a sharrow in the #2 (right or through) e/b lane of Encinitas Bl. at I-5, and we have it made. (Pete has also suggested #1 straight, bike lane, #2 RTO onto I-5 s/b, but a lot of traffic is going straight ahead, rather than turning right at that particular light.)

John A. Eldon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/893864335.1169539.1759201153895%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Pete Penseyres]

If there is a need for the straight-right #2 lane due to lots of traffic (including 100% of cyclists) going straight past the on-ramp, the Bike Lane solution I suggested is a non-starter, and I apologize. 

Pete Penseyres

League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #2020

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/2088126448.1220591.1759234170798%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Jim Baross]

I have made time to dig into some of the CTCDC material regarding Chapter 9.

7. I recommend that the Calif. MUTCD replace the use of the title "separated bicycle lane" with "Separated Bikeway" or "Cycle Track."  

California has four types of Bikeways. Class IV Separated Bikeways differ in several ways from Class II Bicycle Lanes; one crucial difference is that Class IVs are adjacent to, but not part of, the Roadway. Bicyclists are not required by CVC 21208 or any other laws to ride in Class IVs. I notice that there are many references in the MUTCD to something titled "separated bicycle lane." There are no "separated bicycle lanes" in California!

Here is an instance of the misleading reference: "CA MUTCD 2026 Proposal includes text: 'BIKE LANE (R3-17) signs (see Figure 9B-1) should be used to distinguish a separated bicycle lane from a general-purpose lane."

Worse: 

"Section 9E.06 Buffer-Separated Bicycle Lanes (Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane or Buffer-Separated Bicycle Lane)) Support: 00a  00b  00c  In California, Class II and Class IV Bikeways are classified as follows: 

A. Class II Bikeway (bike lane, bicycle lane or buffer-separated bicycle lane) - Buffer-separated bicycle lanes provide additional lateral separation between a bicycle lane and a general-purpose lane by a pattern of pavement markings without the presence of vertical elements. 

B. Class IV Bikeway (cycle track, separated bikeway or separated bicycle lane) - Separated bicycle lanes provide a physical separation between a general-purpose lane and a bicycle lane through the use of vertical objects or vertical separation between the general-purpose lane and bicycle lane.  

Jim Baross

[Bill Sellin WAS15@]

Thanks Jim

Sneaking in Federal language - agree to NEVER call class 4 cycletracks “bike lanes”

Bill Sellin

714 943-3678

wa...@sellin.com

WASe...@gmail.com

"Most of the World 

        is either Downhill or Flat..."

On Sep 30, 2025, at 1:05 PM, Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:



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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXdTG8kM6fYrtSH4afsnR2p%3DMv97a%3DJm-psJ5Y6YcZEO5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

I want to emphasize that my further research confirms the importance of our previous recommendations regarding the Federal MUTCD's lack of distinction between Class IV Separated Bikeways and "bicycle lanes" (Class II Bikeways). California MUTCD should give guidance that conforms to the bikeway categories and related CVC laws.

This matters; California Vehicle Code 21208 requires people bicycling to use Class II Bikeways where they occur, though with some exceptions. Bicyclists are not required to use Class IV Separated Bikeways; they may lawfully choose to use the general travel lanes. California's traffic control guidance should account for the differences not only to reduce confusion about where people bicycling may ride, but also so that traffic control devices accommodate bicycling in general travel lanes adjacent to Cycle Tracks.

I found more than 50 instances of the term "separated bicycle lane(s)" in just Chapters 9 and 2; most were inappropriate. All but approximately six cases should have used the designations "separated bikeway," "Cycle Track," "Class IV Separated Bikeway," or a similar classification.

Similarly, the use of "bicycle lane(s)" should be examined for inappropriately including or referring to Class IV Bikeways.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:04 PM Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have made time to dig into some of the CTCDC material regarding Chapter 9.

7. I recommend that the Calif. MUTCD replace the use of the title "separated bicycle lane" with "Separated Bikeway" or "Cycle Track."  

California has four types of Bikeways. Class IV Separated Bikeways differ in several ways from Class II Bicycle Lanes; one crucial difference is that Class IVs are adjacent to, but not part of, the Roadway. Bicyclists are not required by CVC 21208 or any other laws to ride in Class IVs. I notice that there are many references in the MUTCD to something titled "separated bicycle lane." There are no "separated bicycle lanes" in California!

Here is an instance of the misleading reference: "CA MUTCD 2026 Proposal includes text: 'BIKE LANE (R3-17) signs (see Figure 9B-1) should be used to distinguish a separated bicycle lane from a general-purpose lane."

Worse: 

"Section 9E.06 Buffer-Separated Bicycle Lanes (Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane or Buffer-Separated Bicycle Lane)) Support: 00a  00b  00c  In California, Class II and Class IV Bikeways are classified as follows: 

A. Class II Bikeway (bike lane, bicycle lane or buffer-separated bicycle lane) - Buffer-separated bicycle lanes provide additional lateral separation between a bicycle lane and a general-purpose lane by a pattern of pavement markings without the presence of vertical elements. 

B. Class IV Bikeway (cycle track, separated bikeway or separated bicycle lane) - Separated bicycle lanes provide a physical separation between a general-purpose lane and a bicycle lane through the use of vertical objects or vertical separation between the general-purpose lane and bicycle lane.  

Jim Baross

   CABO President

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 12:35 PM Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote and subsequently slightly modified on Oct. 1:

Hi Josh

I noticed that the next CTCDC meeting is this week. Who will be attending? I'll look into the possibility of observing, if not contributing.

I am typing up some things I'm wondering about. (My afternoon musings have come up with six items.)

I have mentioned some MUTCD concerns before, but I haven't been able to keep up with the CTCDC and MUTCD progress. 

Do you (or anyone copied on this message) happen to have any updates to share or recommendations for implementing the issues/ideas below?

Thanks.

1. Will California's Sharrows guidance continue to include the California-specific allowance/exception allowing Sharrows placement, with limitations, on roads with higher posted speed limits? (This despite the prohibition recently enacted.)

Per the CA-MUTCD, "Option: 02a The Shared Lane Marking may be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph, where there is bicycle

travel and there is no marked bicycle lane and the right-hand traffic lane is too narrow to allow motor vehicles to safely pass bicyclists."

2. Will we get signage and pavement markings into the CA-MUTCD for Class IVs that distinguish Class IV from Class II? Or even informational text included that bicycling in Class IV is optional, so adjacent roadway space should also accommodate bicycling? (Choice matters)

3. Will the new info signs and guidance for bicyclists' lawful access to certain freeway shoulders be included in the Calif. MUTCD; "biycles allowed on shoulder"? 

(Related question: May we assume that Electric Bicycles are included with Bicycles when freeway shoulder access is not prohibited, even though Electric Bicycles have motors and the standard sign prohibits "motor driver cycles"?)