Comments on: If You Want to Know Bike Laws, Don’t Ask the California Highway Patrol

By: fthepolice

fthepolice — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:12:00 +0000

I love how America is so desperate for money they have to actually fine bicyclist now to make thier city money. This is the laws that people are fed up with I just got a ticket tonight for not having a light on my bike from a law that was introduced a few years ago that i had no idea exsisted you would think that when they create these money making laws which serve no purpose but to charge people who are doing no real crime they would have to send the paperwork to the public instead of putting it on thier website. This is why i hate all forms of govt law enforcement and lawmakers. Their bottom line is to write tickets to make money for the city especially in my city (santa clarita)which is like the 5th safest per capita in america and where 4 out of 10 people are cops or related to cops. Dont ever live in this city unless you want to just give your hard earned money away for pointless tickets.

By: billdav

billdav — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:49:00 +0000

@9d65574106904192a356c7b661530a66:disqus : You are completely and totally wrong.
1. Riding in the middle of the lane is NOT exacerbating a dangerous situation. You only think it is because you do not understand traffic flow. Motorists do slow down when they come up behind a bicyclist in the middle of the lane.

2. Riding right next to the yellow line would be as bad if not worse than riding to the far right. It would invite close passes on the right. That is the opposite of what is wanted. Yes, it would be legal but nobody who understands safety would ever consider recommending it because it would be unsafe.

3. Riding two abreast is not illegal and is not by itself a violation of 21202. It is only a violation of 21202 if none of the exceptions in 21202 applies.

4. You are the one who needs to grow up. Bicyclists are not invading the territory of motorists. The road is a public shared right of way and bicyclists have as much right to use it as motorists do. It’s amazing how childish the anti-cyclist types are. Moving over to pass a bicyclist safely is incredibly easy. It amazes me how people will whine and make excuses for why they shouldn’t have to do it.

By: Serge

Serge — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:11:00 +0000

You are wrong. In terms of car-bike side-by-side travel, a lane more narrow than 14′ is the unsafe condition, and motorists must use the adjacent lane to pass. Keeping far right in such a lane (which is typical) is unsafe because if invites overtaking motorists to try to squeeze unto the lane with the bicyclist, dangerously close. If it’s temporarily not possible to change lanes, the motorist must slow down. This is only dangerous if the motorist remains oblivious to the condition until it’s too late to slow down slowly and safely. That too can be mitigated by the cyclist riding further left, perhaps as far left as the center stripe, so that he is noticed sooner rather than later, giving approaching motorists more time and space to plan accordingly.

By: spacecat

spacecat — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:02:00 +0000

Your interpretation of 21202(a)(3) is absurd and obviously wrong. The code says the exceptions are “When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions … that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb…” and you claim that means in sub-standard-width lanes that gives you the right to take up the whole lane with a slow-moving bicycle. But such an action is not “avoiding an unsafe condition” it is exacerbating one. On your reasoning a solo rider on a 2-lane road with 11′ lanes is welcome to ride just to the right of the yellow line. Yeah, right! Let me see you try it.

You are twisting and distorting the code to avoid its plain meaning and claim that it gives you a right to indulge in a dangerous practice, often undertaken to be deliberately offensive to motorists as a political/social statement. Grow UP! The law plainly says, and means, that you are required in general to right as close to the curb as practical, and it is physically obvious that this means you cannot ride 2-abreast (or 4-abreast, as I see all too often).

By: Mightymexica

Mightymexica — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:15:00 +0000

i ran a red light on my bicycle and i hear the fines up to 381 dollars is there any bycicle traffic schools ? so i might lower my ticket??

By: Spokker

Spokker — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:35:32 +0000

“A good example is Christian Stoehr.”

Stoehr is a dick. There are dick drivers and there are dick cyclists. Thompson’s folly was letting a dick get the best of him. Thompson ended up a dick in the end as well and now he’s rotting in jail.

An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. This is basic shit here, folks. Being able to resist taking revenge on a dipshit riding a bike is a good skill to develop.

By: Pete Kaplana

Pete Kaplana — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:34:19 +0000

“So, if a bicyclist is riding next to another cyclist (or side-by-side) then there’s no way the cyclist on the outside could be riding as close as practical to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway… and therefore would be in violation of VC Section 21202(a) and could be cited by an officer. Hope that helps…..” Jaime Coffee, Information Officer II, CHP Media Relations.”

Greetings, when Coffee is referring to the cyclist on the ‘outside’, he means the cyclist on the outside of the other cyclist. ‘Outside’ of the ‘curb or edge of the roadway’.

I’m a cyclist. I’ve only been riding regularly for a couple years.
Sometimes when I’m riding I know I have the ‘right away’ but might also be stalling traffic, so I’ll try to get out of the way of other cyclists or vehicles, and so do the people I ride with.

I’d like to know why there are some cyclists who ride as if they want to make people mad at them? They know there is a ‘car back’ or other cyclists, but they act as if they have something to prove.

A good example is Christian Stoehr. I heard him tell his story on KFI a month ago. He did everything he could to get that motorist mad at him. He said he was riding side by side and knew the car was a couple hundred yards back and waited 30 seconds after the driver got behind him and blew the horn before he got over, then he shouted F…you into the car window. He may have not done anything illegal, but he did incite that guy to slam on his brakes and almost kill him and his two buddies. Next time the cyclist may not be so lucky!

Thanks,
Pete

By: Hanrod

Hanrod — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:32:51 +0000

There is a misstatement by the author here, within the same paragraph. It is first stated that Section 21202(a) does not apply when any of the 4 exceptions applies (correct); but then goes on immediately to say that a slower cyclist is “beholden” to the section ONLY when the exceptions apply (incorrect). The words “do not” should be inserted in this last phrase. This kind of thing only adds to the confusion. THE IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THE LAW RELATED TO RESPECTIVE RIGHT OF WAY OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND SLOWER TRAVELING BICYCLES IS VERY CONFUSING, AND SHOULD BE CLARIFIED, CONCRETE, AND ALWAYS ENFORCED.

Apparently politicians are unable or unwilling to make clear law, probably because the most practical is not politically correct at this time, and the most politically correct solutions are not practical. Come on, either give cycles the exact same rights as MVs, considering them to “own” the same space in a lane as they would if they were the size of a motor vehicle (presumably even on a so-called “freeway”), regardless of how fast they are traveling (thus eliminating the necessity for bike lanes); or require that cycles always defer to faster moving MVs, even pulling over and (God forbid) stopping, when necessary to so defer.

By: fred_dot_u

fred_dot_u — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:31:50 +0000

I’ll echo the other comments suggesting that vehicular cycling practices work. Having adopted this manner of operation in the last year of so has resulted in far fewer conflicts with traffic, especially on four, six, eight and ten lane roads with high speed limits.

The self-fullfilling reference is valid too. You don’t think it will work, so you don’t try it. When you try it, you find it works.

All of these suggestions are based on proven cyclist safety.

Sadly, law enforcement in the eight cities in which I ride have to be educated every time I am stopped by an uninformed uniformed officer. Some refuse to be educated and write meaningless citations.

By: Randy Victory

Randy Victory — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:34:57 +0000

Traffic Cyclist is correct. I first “discovered” this type of riding years ago – in fact, I thought I’d invented it! (Called it “ride like a car”.)
The first thing I noticed was that the incidence of “close calls” I experienced dropped to virtually zero.
Years later, I too became a League Certified Instructor. The biggest obstacle to this safe and speedy method of riding is years of ingrained fear, unfamilarity, and a superstitious belief that it’s safer to “stay out-of-the-way”. (The occasional angry/honking motorist reinforces these beliefs.)
The facts and available data show that this is BY FAR the safest way to get around by bike.
Try it. It’ll likely take a few months to get fully acclimated because of the years of accumulated misconceptions, but once you do, you’ll find yourself riding just like you drive, never giving it a second thought.
The way I used to ride is now a dim memory, and sometimes I can’t believe I ever rode in such a fearful and dangerous manner.

LCI #1197, Arizona

By: Traffic Cyclist

Traffic Cyclist — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:46:34 +0000

ian Leighton wrote, “i have to say, when you watch that video, something just doesn’t look right. yeah it’s the safe way to ride but when it comes down to it, cyclists need their own infrastructure, their own lanes. bikes ≠ cars. “

Perhaps the reason it doesn’t look right is because it’s unusual; that you’re not accustomed to seeing it? But if you let that be the reason to not do it, it will remain a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need more and more bicyclists riding like this, not just Dan and Brian and few other “integrated cyclists” scattered around the U.S.

Bicyclists having their own bike lanes does nothing to address the main safety issue – intersections – and arguably makes it less safe.

No, integrated vehicular cycling, as depicted in the video, is the best and probably only way to ride a bicycle safely and comfortably in traffic. Even if, for now, it doesn’t look right. That will change, with time. Just do it!

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:28:46 +0000

If the “normal speed of traffic” consists of a hundred or so bicyclists, then the exception also applies and riding two or more abreast is not illegal.

“Any 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…”

By: ian Leighton

ian Leighton — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:21:43 +0000

i have to say, when you watch that video, something just doesn’t look right. yeah it’s the safe way to ride but when it comes down to it, cyclists need their own infrastructure, their own lanes. bikes ≠ cars. sorry.

By: Galen Stevens

Galen Stevens — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:42:45 +0000

Great article, very good information to know! I have personally wondered about this for a while.

By: Umberto Brayj

Umberto Brayj — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:22:40 +0000

Irvine has a ban on two-abreast riding – if it is illegal to have this law on the books, where is the law suit?

By: Eric C.

Eric C. — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:37:59 +0000

Excellent reporting! When I was on the CHP I took the time to look these kind of vehicle code questions up. My reputation was good, I even had some nice nicknames for being so knowledgeable about vehicle code sections. Thanks goes out to Dan Gutierrez!