[SDCBC] Is this sign approved?

[Kenneth King]

Right. SLO County needs to be informed of that. Which Bike Coalition should
handle that with the county?

-----Original Message-----
From: Bicyclist [mailto:bikes.alot at cox.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:10 AM
To: kking002 at san.rr.com; sdcbc at bikesandiego.org
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Is this sign approved?


The white one is not an approved sign. There is no section of CVC 21202
requiring single file bicycling.

Try this from http://www.vcbike.org/bikelaw/bikelaw.htm#_C._Riding_Single by
Alan Wachtel.



C. Riding Single File or Two or More Abreast

Nothing in California law explicitly requires bicyclists to ride single file
or prevents them from riding two or more abreast, as bicyclists often do for
social reasons.[79] Nonetheless, some police officers believe that the slow
bicycle rule does so implicitly, because the bicyclist on the left is not
riding “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway.” This opinion is also expressed in a 1975 Attorney General’s letter
of advice to the Statewide Bicycle Committee, without further
elaboration.[80] 

This interpretation lacks reason, common sense, and harmony.[81] In the
strictest sense, the bicyclist on the left cannot ride farther to the right,
because of the presence of the bicyclist on the right. In an analogous
situation, on a road that carries three lanes of traffic in the same
direction, it would surely be considered proper for two slower motor
vehicles to travel abreast in the two right-hand lanes, leaving the
left-hand lane open for faster traffic to pass. Riding two abreast is
expressly permitted by both the slow bicycle rule and the bike-lane rule
when one bicyclist is passing another, even if both are slower than other
traffic. Finally, no law currently prevents a car and a bicycle, regardless
of speed, from traveling abreast in a single lane wide enough to allow
it.[82] It is therefore illogical to single out two bicycles side by side. 

If the slow bicycle rule is to be applied to the case of two cyclists side
by side, it must meet the tests described under “What Constitutes a
Violation?” supra. Clearly the rule cannot apply unless both cyclists are
traveling slower than other traffic; if not, they may ride two or more
abreast. Nor does the slow bicycle rule apply in a narrow lane, so riding
two or more abreast is lawful there. The slow bicycle rule should apply only
when faster traffic is unable to overtake and pass.[83] If traffic can pass
by changing lanes, or if it could not pass even if the bicyclists were
riding single file, there should be no violation. If bicyclists ride two or
more abreast, but revert to single file to allow following traffic to
overtake, again there should be no violation. 

Regardless of how the slow bicycle rule is interpreted, bicyclists may
lawfully ride two or more abreast on the shoulder, because the shoulder is
not part of the roadway, and therefore not subject to the slow bicycle
rule.[84] Likewise, bicyclists may ride abreast, one on the roadway and one
or more on the shoulder, provided that the one on the roadway observes the
slow bicycle rule, if applicable.[85] Finally, bicyclists may ride two or
more abreast in a bike lane; the special bike-lane rule, if applicable,
requires at most that they ride within the bike lane, without specifying any
particular position in it.

[81]. For exactly the same reason, the Attorney General found in id. that
bicyclists could legally make a left turn from a left-turn lane or pocket,
overtake and pass to the left of a slower vehicle, or move away from the
right-hand curb or edge to avoid hazards in the roadway, even though Cal.
Veh. Code § 21202 at that time contained no such explicit exceptions. 

[82]. If such a law were enacted, it would disrupt traffic flow
unnecessarily by preventing a motorist from passing a bicyclist in a lane
wide enough to permit passing to be done safely. 

[83]. See “Practicable is a Flexible Term Favorable to Bicyclists” and “What
Constitutes a Violation?” supra. 

[84]. “Bicyclists May Ride on the Shoulder” infra demonstrates that riding
on the shoulder is lawful per se.

[85]. The slow bicycle rule does not apply to the bicyclist on the shoulder.



At 07:40 AM 2/20/2007, Kenneth King wrote:


This is a San Luis Obispo sign. I don't think I have seen one like it
before; approved by CALTRANS?
Ken

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070220/61cdf615/attachment.html