Fwd: Exceptions to Mandatory Bike Lane Law (CVC 21208)
Gary Cziko
(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 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 the provisions of 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.
Professor Emeritus
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Graff
--
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_YxdKi%3D7Asvt2LAxox9FATOFTHu_t36hTSp-FVmLXEtBXg%40mail.gmail.com.
Serge Issakov
“California's far-to-the-right law (CVC 21208)”
--
Alan Wachtel
Gary Cziko wrote:
We learn from Keri Caffrey's video about California's far-to-the-right law (CVC 21208), that originally it had no stated exceptions and that the first three exceptions (along with the limitation of it being applied only to bicycles at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic) were added in 1976:
That must be a typo for 21202.
(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 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 the provisions of 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.
And that the last exception to protect against right hooks was added in 1997:
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
Our mandatory bike lane law, CVC 21208, has the same exceptions, except for no mention of "substandard width lane" under the "hazards" exceptions.
Does anyone know the comparable history of CVC 21208? Was it also first proposed with no exceptions which were added later?
In 1976, §21202 was amended to add the now-familiar exceptions (other
than the one for right turns), plus the limitation for speed, as a
result of recommendations by the SCR 47 Statewide Bicycle
Committee. §21208 was added to the Vehicle Code at the same time,
also at the SCR 47 Committee's recommendation. From the very
beginning, it included the same exceptions (other than the ones
for substandard width lanes and, again, for right turns), as well
as the limitation for speed. As explained in a message in March
(cited by Michael Graff), right turns were added to both §21202
and §21208 by SB 515 of the 1995-96 legislative session, authored
by Senator Lucy Killea of San Diego, and developed in close
cooperation with CABO.
As for the substandard width lane exception being missing from
§21208, vehicles and bicycles don't normally travel side by side
within a bike lane, so that must have been thought unnecessary.
~ Alan
Gary Cziko
As explained in a message in March (cited by Michael Graff), right turns were added to both §21202 and §21208 by SB 515 of the 1995-96 legislative session, authored by Senator Lucy Killea of San Diego, and developed in close cooperation with CABO.
--
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/20d01695-0c48-4b92-875c-b384618f24cc%40aol.com.
Serge Issakov
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YyQA26F_YjuLrCHfXNCvX_0xp8H2d02gwK31FFmUv8fww%40mail.gmail.com.
Alan Wachtel
So am I correct in understanding that until 21208 was added to the CVC in 1976 there was no mandatory bike lane law in California? And perhaps there were no (or very few) bike lanes in California before 1976?
As Serge replied:
There were definitely bike lanes before 1976—I believe it was 1967* or so when Davis got its first one—but, especially outside of Davis, very few.
Palo Alto installed bike lanes in the early '70s, demarcated by a barely visible dark green stripe.
The first California bikeway standards were the April 1972
"Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines," written by the
Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering at UCLA for
what was then the Division of Highways within the California
Department of Public Works. These are known as the ITTE Bikeway
Guidelines. In August 1974, the Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), as it had in the meantime become, adopted its own
standards as Section 7-1000, "Bike Routes," of the Highway Design
Manual. These standards were meant to apply to state highways;
their use on local roads was optional. Another of the SCR 47
reforms was §21207, which required local bikeways to adhere to
Caltrans design standards. In 1976 this section was split off into
a separate publication, "Planning and Design Criteria for Bikeways
in California," which was eventually folded back into the HDM and
CA MUTCD.
Prior to §21208, any bike lane laws would have been local. (From
1963 through 1976, local authorities were permitted to regulate
bicycle operation on the road.) Here's what the SCR 47 Committee
had to say about its proposed §21208:
"This issue is so complex and controversial that after reading and hearing all the public testimony, the Committee recommends this proposed bike lane law by the close vote of 5 to 4. The California Vehicle Code does not provide specific guidance for bicyclists operating in a bicycle lane on the roadway. The Committee recommends that a section concerning this subject be added to the California Vehicle Code so that the law Is uniform statewide.
"The Committee has received oral and written criticism regarding the proposed bike lane law. The proposed law has been criticized for being both too lenient and too restrictive as well as being too wordy and complex. Persons criticizing this recommendation for being too lenient have indicated that they think bike lanes are useless unless motorists can be sure that bicyclists will use them and stay in them. It is the Committee's intent to insure that bicyclists are not restricted entirely to bicycle lanes, but that bicyclists be required to normally operate in bike lanes when bicyclists are on roadways where bike lanes have been established.
"Others have criticized the proposed law as being too
restrictive. They have indicated that, if enacted, this
recommendation reduces bicyclists' rights as drivers of vehicles
on the roadway, as stated in CVC Section 21200, and it increases
bicyclists' hazards and duties. For example, they state that if a
bicyclist chooses to leave the bike lane to avoid debris and the
bicyclist is involved in an accident, then the bicyclist must
prove to a court that he had a legitimate reason for being in the
traffic lane. This appears to place an undue burden on the
bicyclist. The Committee has recognized this concern but
recommends this proposal as a guideline for legislation which
should provide greater safety for the children and inexperienced
bicyclists using bike lanes."
~ Alan