[SDCBC] Is this sign approved?

[Jim Baross]

Congratulations all around.
The incident points out to me that decisions 
about roads should not be made without solid 
knowledge of the rules and rights of all the legal users....

Vandalism of the signs and statements like, "the 
signs (Share the Road) are too one sided in favor 
of bicyclists." indicate to me that there are a 
lot of folks who want to travel unimpeded in 
their motor vehicles. I don't blame them for 
wanting the road to themselves... but they can't have it!

There is NO RIGHT OF SPEED!

At 05:53 PM 2/20/2007, Adam Fukushima wrote:
>Hello folks,
>
>I spoke with David Flynn of County Public Works 
>today. He said that since installing new Share 
>the Road signs in some of the outer rural areas 
>of the County that they had been getting 
>complaints that the signs are too one sided in 
>favor of bicyclists. They had also noticed a lot 
>of vandalism of the new signs. In response, 
>County Public Works put up the "bicyclists must 
>ride single file" signs. However, in reviewing 
>the new signs with the CHP, Mr. Flynn said that 
>the department decided to remove them because of 
>"legal complications". He expects the signs to 
>be fully removed within a month and a half.
>
>Thanks everyone for bringing this issue to our 
>attention. I think at this point we should take 
>Mr. Flynn at his word making sure that the signs 
>do finally get removed within the time frame that he mentioned.
>
>Best,
>
>Adam
>
>Adam Fukushima, Executive Director
>San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition
>P.O. Box 14860
>San Luis Obispo CA 93406
>Phone (805) 541-3875
>Email: <mailto:adamf at slobikelane.org>adamf at slobikelane.org
>Web: <http://www.slobikelane.org>www.slobikelane.org
>
>"Making our community better for bicycles"
>
>
>On Feb 20, 2007, at 11:13, Kevin Christian wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>The black on white sign was presented at the 
>>last SLO County BAC meeting (Tuesday 2/13). It 
>>was presented as an informational item and was 
>>not on the agenda, therefore due to the Brown 
>>act, no discussion on it was made. I attended 
>>the meeting as a member of the public. It 
>>wasn't clear to me at the time of the 
>>presentation that the signs had already begun 
>>to be posted. At the end of the meeting when 
>>they were calling for agenda items for the next 
>>meeting, I brought the sign up. I advised that 
>>I did not believe it was a legal sign and that 
>>it did not accurately state the CVC it 
>>"quotes". I then read the CVC21202. The item is 
>>to be put on the next County BAC agenda. That unfortunately is in three months.
>>
>>The following day I discussed the sign with a 
>>Highway Patrol officer who is also a local 
>>cyclist. He indicated that he would look into 
>>it. He is now in touch with the county works 
>>folks who were responsible for producing and 
>>posting the signs. The short story is that they 
>>were trying to respond to complaints they have 
>>received on some of our rural roads. The CHP 
>>Officer informed them that the sign was 
>>illegal, unenforceable, potentially liable to 
>>open the county up to law suits if any 
>>"accidents" were ever tied to the sign, and 
>>therefore should not be used. Further he 
>>explained that on most of the roads discussed, 
>>the lane is not technically wide enough to 
>>share and therefore bikes have a legal right to 
>>use the whole lane. There were also discussions 
>>concerning the large safety concerns amongst 
>>cyclists that could result in the form of a 
>>motorist who feels "empowered" to take action 
>>against cyclists by what they have been informed (by the sign) is the law.
>>
>>Following discussions on Friday 2/16 with the 
>>Officer and other riders revealed that the 
>>signs have been posted. The CHP Officer 
>>indicated he would communicate further with the 
>>county workers. I requested that cyclists 
>>either alert him or myself when and where they 
>>see the signs posted. At this point I am 
>>waiting to see if the communications between 
>>the CHP and the County are sufficient to have 
>>the signs taken down. I intend to wait no 
>>longer than the end of the month. At that 
>>point, if signs are still in place I will take 
>>further action. My thoughts are to at least 
>>bring it up to the County Supervisors. If there 
>>are any suggestions of a better way to handle this, please let me know.
>>
>>FYI: I know of two locations for the signs at this point.
>>- O'Donnavan Road near the junction of Hwy58
>>- Creston road at the south Eastern end of Paso 
>>Robles.  Its near the Wal Mart side of town on Creston Road
>>
>>Kevin
>>
>>--------------------
>>Kevin Christian
>>League of American Bicyclists, LCI #1377
>>
>>610 Al-Hil Drive
>>San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
>>(805) 783-0942
>>
>>On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Jean Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>Jim and Ken,
>>>
>>>   We just became aware of this illegal sign 
>>> last week. Can you forward the photo to 
>>> Kevin, Aileeen, Adam and me, please? Adam is 
>>> the Exec. Director of the SLO County Bicycle Coalition. All of us are LCIs.
>>>
>>>   Kevin Christian attended the latest SLO 
>>> County BAC meeting and has more details. He 
>>> has also notified a CHP officer. As I 
>>> understand it, these signs will be reported. 
>>> What happens after that I'm not sure.
>>>
>>>   --Jean
>>>
>>>On Feb 20, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Jim Baross wrote:
>>>
>>>>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: 
>>>>><mailto:kking002 at san.rr.com>kking002 at san.rr.c 
>>>>>om; <mailto:sdcbc at bikesandiego.org>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/d8a6f995/attachment.html