[SDCBC] Is this sign approved?

[Jim Baross]

CABO has two district reps splitting that 
CalTrans district. I'll forward to Jean Anderson and Leo Jed.
It might be that there could be a reasonable 
justification for having that sign up... but I 
can't think of one at the moment.

Did you note and would you provide a more exact location for the sign?

At 08:47 AM 2/20/2007, Kenneth King wrote:
>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/20070220/172914a7/attachment.html