Talk:Bicycle law in California/Archive 1

Archive 1

TO DO

I just discovered this article. It's a good start, and I've expanded on it some, but it has a lot of room for improvement. I'll start the TODO list off the top of my head below. Feel free to add to it... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Add a section on 21208 (bike lanes)  Done
• Under 21200, give examples of laws that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles (like following too closely  Done, and against racing  Done), and those that apply to all drivers (like traveling on the right side, obeying traffic control devices, etc.).
• Add a subsection under 21200 devoted to the "preparing for a left turn" exception - including explaining how sometimes cyclists have to start merging left more than a block before they reach the turn (find reference for this).
• Add a subsection under 21202 noting that single-file cycling is not required.  Done.
• Add a section on equipment requirements, including bike lighting requirements, and explain why motor vehicle requirements (mirrors, turn signals) do not apply to bicyclists.
• Give meaning of "practicable" in more detail, and explain ramifications better.  Done
• Add a section on bicyclist helmet requirements (minors)
• Explain why laws against impeding traffic do not apply to bicyclists who are traveling as fast as they reasonably can (reference Mionske).
• Add links to this article from other relevant articles.
• Add definition of a bicycle (device, not vehicle)
• Add laws requiring adherence to stop signs and traffic signals, showing how they apply to bicyclists. Contrast with Idaho where bicyclists are allowed to treat stops as yields, and red lights as stop signs.
• Add note contrasting Oregon turning laws and bike lanes with California's.
• Add law requiring right turners to drive as far right as practicable to right edge, and contrast with 21202 exception for cyclists to move left at places where right turns are allowed.
• Add law about (hand) turn signals - Isn't this covered already by the section on CVC 22107?
• Add law about need to yield before changing line of travel - explain how bicyclists following fixed distance from edge line can - rather than fixed distance from center of roadway or lane stripe - can inadvertently change line of travel without properly yielding. Isn't this covered already by the section on CVC 22107?
• Add law about safe passing. CVC 21750.
• show cascade of laws/specs that make it so cyclists are required to ride in bike lanes only when they meet the specs, and what the Cali MUTCD specs are. See CVC 21208, CVC 21207, California Streets and Highways Code 891, 2010 California MUTCD 9C.04, Caltrans Highway Design Manual 1003.2.
• Note that there is no law that requires bicyclists to ride on sidepaths (or "bike lanes" physically separated from the roadway). Note that 21208 only applies to bike lanes established on a roadway, and a lane physically separated from the roadway is not on a roadway.
• Door zones. Explain why 21202 exception alleviates bicyclists from ever having to ride in door zones, even though motorists are required to check first (cite that law).
• Compare/contrast shoulders and bike lanes. How do they differ physically? (stripe width, symbols, signs). What are the legal ramifications?
• When done, remove construction template
• rename to Bicycle law in California, per suggestions at Afd.  Done

Please no Afd nominations for now...

Since the recent Afd nomination process resulted in "no consensus", this article could be nominated for deletion again at any time.

I hereby request that such nominations not occur while this article remains under construction, ideally through this summer (of 2009). Hopefully we (or maybe just I?) will be done long before the end of the summer.

In the mean time, constructive criticisms are welcome and encouraged. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues tag - questions

This article has been marked with having the following issues:

• It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content.

Can someone give me a few examples of what they believe to be "instructions, advice, or how-to content" in the article. I was trying to avoid specifically that, but I would like to know what I missed.

Is this sentence considered to be of that type: "There are important safety reasons to take advantage of this legal opportunity to safely merge left well out into the vehicular traffic lane [13]."? It's not advice, it is a cited statement consistent with authoritative opinion in this field.

There is also this: "traffic cycling experts agree door zones are hazards that are to be avoided, and that riding at least four feet from parked cars is a good practice."

Is that advice, or a statement reporting the advice generally given by authorities in the field? I agree it needs a citation, but does it need to be removed?

• Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
• It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

I'm going to assume these two basically mean to make it more like Bicycle law. If it means something else, please let me know.

• It contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.

This article currently contains 13 quotations. Is that really too many? Please cite the relevant guideline or policy so I know to what this needs to conform.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bicycles are devices, not vehicles

CVC 231 and 39000. CVC 21200 does not make bikes vehicles. It says that those riding bicycles must follow the same rules and have the same rights as those driving vehicles. So laws that apply to vehicles without referencing driving should have no application. For example, much of CVC 21113 should not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.68.236 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes by wtmusic

I'm leaning towards reverting most of wtmusic's changes, which can be seen in this diff. But I'll take them one at a time. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

keeping right

Before:

Cyclists required to keep right only when faster same direction traffic is present on long turn-free sections with wide lanes and no debris or other hazards

After:

Cyclists required to keep right except under certain conditions

Why be more vague? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I made this change and some others because you've titled the article Bicycle law in California, not "Bicyclists' Rights in California." The distinction is not trivial. Wording in CVC 21202 A. lists prohibitions with exceptions, and you've placed misleading emphasis on exceptions from prohibitions, with possible implications for safety.

--Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who you're referring to with you, but I didn't title this article. The exceptions are in there for reasons of safety... de-emphasizing has possible implications for safety. That's the point. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought it was your article. Without getting too far off the subject of Bicycle law in California - there are a number of places in this article where unsafe riding is encouraged. For example, there are claims that racing bicycles on open roads and drafting are legal. In reality, racing is often unsafe, drafting a motor vehicle is unsafe under any situation, and both would probably be ticketed under reckless driving: "23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving." Taking a lane, in the article as it stood, was argued to be legal (implied: acceptable) in any lane less than 14' wide - even if traffic is whizzing by at 50mph. As a cyclist I'm all for cyclists rights, but this is irresponsible. --Wtmusic (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that one bicyclist drafting/tailgating another is not illegal, and I've never heard or read bicyclists ever cited for racing under reckless driving or anything else. It's highly unlikely for CVC 23103 to apply to bicyclists since it's the vehicle that creates the danger to others, and bicycles are not legally vehicles. Bike clubs have been having bike races on the streets of California for years. Sure the big ones involve police permits and the closing of streets, but many are informal, don't close the street, and are never-the-less legal. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The footnotes also reference "AASHTO’s 1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states (p. 17): "In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane....". I've restored the "in the rare situations" clause, added a citation, and improved the wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

21202

---

Before:

Section 21202 (a) addresses the roadway position that a bicyclist moving slower than other traffic should use in the rare situations when none of the exceptions listed apply.

After:

Section 21202 (a) addresses the roadway position that a bicyclist moving slower than other traffic should use when none of the exceptions listed apply.

The narrow lane exception alone applies to the majority of roads since most roads have lanes in the 9-12' range (and 14' is the minimum required for safe side-by-side sharing), therefore situations where keeping right is legally required are relatively rare. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The 14' designation for a minimum width of side-by-side sharing is a recommendation from a non-governmental organization, and has no cite from case law. --Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While in most state laws the minimum width for safe sharing is not stated explicitly, in states where it is explicitly stated, like in Texas, it's stated to be 14'. See Texas Sec. 551.103(a)(4)(A)[1]. While TX law of course does not set a Binding precedent in CA, it's certainly an important Persuasive precedent; as relevant as just about any other source when trying to quantify this issue. I don't if we need to add this to the article - I'm just addressing your contention that 14' is only a recommendation from a non-governmental organization. Besides, the math is pretty straightforward, even assuming typical widths for motor vehicles and minimum buffer space to the road edge and between the cyclist and the vehicle. There are sources for those calculations that might be worth citing here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

single-file

Before:

Bicycling in single-file is not required

Nothing in CVC 21202 nor in any other California law requires bicyclists to ride single file, or prohibits them from riding two abreast. If the situation is such that a bicyclist riding solo would not be required to ride "as close as practicable to the right" (perhaps the lane is too narrow to safely share side-by-side with a vehicle, or there are frequent places "where a right turn is authorized", etc.), then there is no obligation for two cyclists to keep right in single file. Only in the rare situation where,

• faster same direction traffic is present,
• the lane is wide enough to be safely shared by a bicyclist and a vehicle (i.e., at least fourteen feet wide),
• no bike lane is present (two or more abreast may ride in a bike lane)
• the cyclists are not approaching a place where right turns are authorized,
• nor preparing to turn left, and
• no debris or other hazardous conditions prevent them from riding far to the right, are all bicyclists required to temporarily (technically, only until any one one of those conditions no longer applies) ride as far right as practicable in order to allow the faster traffic to pass.

Further, if one cyclist is riding in the shoulder, and another is riding in an adjacent position "as close as practicable to the right" in the roadway, there can be no violation of CVC 21202 no matter what.

After:

Bicycling side by side (two or more abreast)

Though there is no specific prohibition in the California Vehicle Code of riding side by side, CVC21202(a) is reasonably clear in stating that a cyclist who is riding slower than traffic and who is not riding under any (i.e., any one) of the above-named four conditions of CVC21202 (a) "shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway".

Enforcement is not consistent, however, and there are examples of potential conflicts between state and municipal law. For example, the City of Torrance (CA) Code of Ordinances contains the following prohibition:

SECTION 62.1.3 - RIDING IN A GROUP.
Persons operating bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Some argue local regulation of side-by-side riding is in contravention of California CVC 21 Uniformity of Code, although absent any precedent in case law an argument could be made it is justified under CVC2100(a):

21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:

(a) Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.

If one cyclist is riding in the shoulder, and another is riding in an adjacent position "as close as practicable to the right" in the roadway, there can be no violation of CVC 21202.

Actually, some of this change might be useful, but not the part that makes it seem 21202 requires single-file; there is no basis for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"And yet, the law is nuanced in California—sometimes, cyclists may ride two (or more) abreast, while at other times, they must ride single file." Mionske and others feel 21202 can require single-file, depending on circumstances. Also, the conclusion that these situations are "rare" is unsubstantiated. --Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The original text did state that single-file was implicitly required in some situations, and specified all the conditions that had to be present for that to be true. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

bike lane

Before:

Bicyclists required to use bike lane only when faster traffic is present on long turn-free sections with no hazards or debris

After:

Bicyclists required to use bike lane on roadway except under certain conditions

These say the same thing, except the earlier version is more specific, which I think is preferable. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See above post about misleading emphasis. --Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

21208

This section on 21208 was deleted, without explanation:

On roads that have bike lanes, CVC 21208 generally restricts bicyclists to ride in the bike lane, except that it has virtually all of the same exceptions as does CVC 21202. That is, whenever any one of the following conditions apply, there is no legal restriction on the cyclist to ride in the bike lane:

• no faster same-direction traffic on the road at that time
• traveling as fast as, or faster than, other traffic
• passing others
• preparing to turn left
• avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions in the bike lane, or
• approaching a place where right turns are authorized (including driveways, mall entrances and alleys as well cross streets)

Just as for CVC 21202, since at least one of these "exception" conditions often applies in urban and suburban riding (bike lanes are rarely present in rural areas), practically speaking, the legal requirement to ride in bike lanes rarely applies.

Why delete that? Since there was no explanation, I've restored it. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Above post about misleading emphasis. (Apologies if my responses are not supposed to be inline, I'm new to editing Wikipedia). wtmusic (talk · contribs) - unsigned

No worries. This is an unusual situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

More changes by wtmusic

wtmusic (talk · contribs) has not responded here yet, but continues making more changes[2].

21202 A to A

Changing references to subsection (a) of 21202 from "CVC21202(a)" to "CVC 21202 A". Why? Well, I can see the first space, but the paragraph in the law itself is denoted with lowercase a in parentheses; why shouldn't we do that too? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We should, corrected. --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On bicycling side-by-side:

BEFORE:

Enforcement is not consistent, however, and there are examples of potential conflicts between state and municipal law. For example, the City of Torrance (CA) Code of Ordinances contains the following prohibition:

SECTION 62.1.3 - RIDING IN A GROUP.
Persons operating bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Some argue local regulation of side-by-side riding is in contravention of California CVC 21 Uniformity of Code, although absent any precedent in case law an argument could be made it is justified under CVC2100(a):

21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:
(a) Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.

AFTER:

Enforcement of CVC 21202 A. is not consistent, however. Side-by-side riding may also be regulated by local ordinance, as in this example from the City of Torrance (CA):

SECTION 62.1.3 - RIDING IN A GROUP.
Persons operating bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Some argue these local ordinances are contravention of California CVC 21 Uniformity of Code, although absent any precedent in case law an argument could be made they are justified under CVC 21100(a):

CVC 21100(a)

21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:
(a) Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways.

We really need to have a source arguing this to say it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Source not necessary (by definition of "assemblage" prima facie from quote). --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Two bicyclists side-by-side constitutes an "assemblage"? What about two motorcyclists side-by-side, or a group of motorcyclists for that matter? Nothing prima facie about this. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Torrance it would be three or more side by side. Re: legal def of "assemblage", absent a precedent could it not be "more than one"? What's your understanding? --Wtmusic (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "assemblage" implies some kind of formal organizing element. So an official/planned "charity ride" might be regulatable by local authorities, but, as far as I know, the law does not even apply to Critical Mass (famously unorganized and leaderless) rides with hundreds of bicyclists, much less to two or three cyclists who happen to be riding together. We're not supposed to speculate in WP. Unless we can find a reliable source that speculates about this, it shouldn't be in the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 21

BEFORE:

While not referencing bicyclists specifically, Section 21 is critical to California bicyclists because it prohibits local authorities from enacting or enforcing laws that contradict statewide rules, which means there can be no local laws banning bicyclists from certain roads, prohibiting them from riding two or more abreast, etc.

AFTER:

While not referencing bicyclists specifically, Section 21 is critical to California bicyclists because it prohibits local authorities from enacting or enforcing laws that contradict statewide rules.

Why not follow the source and explain why it's critical? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs cite showing "there can be no local laws...prohibiting them from riding two or more abreast." --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On sidewalk cycling...

BEFORE:

CVC 21100 lists the matters on which "Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution". The only matter listed that affects bicyclists specifically is 21100 (h):

AFTER:

CVC 21100 lists the matters on which "Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution". 21100(h) specifically permits regulation of riding on the sidewalk:

If there are no other matters that specifically affect bicyclists, why not point that out? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignores possibility that 21100(a) might affect bicyclists --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also on sidewalk cycling...

BEFORE

So, local authorities may adopt rules and regulations that address bicycling on public sidewalks (indeed, many California cities have banned sidewalk bicycling in business districts), but may not adopt rules and regulations that specially regulate bicycling traffic on public roads.

AFTER:

Under this provision, many California cities have banned sidewalk bicycling in business districts.

Why take out the part that says bicycle traffic on public roads may not be regulated further by local ordinance per this? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignores possibility that 21100(a) might affect bicyclists (I don't know for a fact that it does, but there are municipal laws on the books, riders are being cited, and to my knowledge there haven't been any successful challenges on legal grounds). --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Practicable

There is a potential problem in this article.

The article makes repeated assertions that the word "practicable" in CVC 21202 means "safe". These assertions are backed up by two references to writings by the same person, one Bob Mionske. I do not see any legal precedents to justify this position.

Unfortunately, this position appears to be false. Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed) defines "practicable" as "that which may be done, practiced, or accomplished; that which is performable, feasible, possible". Safety does not even enter into it! There is an important distinction between "practicable" and "practical". If CVC 21202 were to say, "... shall ride as close as practical", this would have had the meaning that Bob Mionske presents. However, it does not. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

this article has major sourcing problems that need to be addressed

I stumbled upon this article, and I noticed that it has a lot of serious problems with WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. While there are a few secondary sources that seem legitimate at first glance, the vast majority of this article simply consists of editors' interpretations of citations of the California Vehicle Code, which is a primary source, not a secondary source. Those portions of the article either need to reference a secondary source or they need to be removed.

For example, the following sections have no source:

• Bicycles, like all other vehicles, must be on the right half of the road
• Definition of "roadway" does not include shoulder
• Turning Off for Five or More Following Vehicles
• Bicyclists are never required to ride in door zones

This is just the first few I noticed, not an exhaustive list.

These parts are just an editor's (some editors'?) interpretation of the various provisions of the CVC and how they interact with each other. Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of synthesis of primary sources, even if the analysis seems obvious. Instead of making the sweeping statement, "Because of the hazard always present in door zones, bicyclists are never required by CVC 21202 or any other law to ride so far right that they could be hit by, or forced to swerve into the adjacent lane, potentially in front of overtaking traffic, by a suddenly opened door of a vehicle" just based on references to CVC 22517 (perhaps as modified by CVC 21202), there needs to be a reference to some biking law expert who published this in a reliable source. So too, even the statement that bicyclists, like everyone else, have to move over if there's 5 people behind them needs a source. What if, for instance, there was some other provision of the CVC that specifically provided that bicyclists were exempt from CVC 21656 [the law that says to move over]? Primary sourcing wouldn't reveal that; hopefully a reliable secondary source would.

I noticed that this article was proposed for deletion three years ago. A plea for additional time was made. Now it's a lot later, and while a select few parts of the article could probably stay, the majority still don't have a legitimate sources. I don't have the time to parse the problematic sources and sections this evening. And I'd like to re-review the afd discussion, also. But unless I'm overlooking something, this article may be looking at a diet in the near future. AgnosticAphid talk 06:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of it is sourced. I'll find more. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Mionske not a reliable source for this topic?

Bob Mionske literally wrote the book, "Bicycling and the Law". Why is his opinion (and that of his associate, Rick Bernardi), as posted on his official website, on these issues not a reliable source for what experts on the issue say about it? They were removed in . this edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)