[SDCBC] FW: Is this sign approved?

[Kathy Keehan]

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Fukushima [mailto:adamf at slobikelane.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:54 PM
To: Kevin Christian
Cc: Jean Anderson; Jim Baross; Aileen Loe; Ken King; sdcbc at bikesandiego.org;
leo jed
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Is this sign approved?


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: adamf at slobikelane.org
Web: 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: 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/20070220/38ca73c3/attachment-0001.html