Originally Posted by Serge *******
That's what I thought until I heard from the guys who got those exceptions put in there, and what they had to go through to get them. It is my understanding that the interpretation of "common sense" back then was that cyclists should stay out of the way of motorists, period. That's the basis for 21202 and 21208. The only way the cycling advocates got those exceptions put in was by arguing that the state would get sued for wrongful death without them. The end result is legal mumbo-jumbo of which most cyclists are not aware (not to mention motorists and law enforcement), so it does not do them much good. What everyone seems to be affected by is the key language:Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway ... any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway ... shall ride within the bicycle lane...
Anyway, here's the full text of 21208:
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be affected by the movement. (bold emphasis mine)
"You better be in the bike lane, boy, unless you have a damn good reason!"
Serge,
I don't mean to inflame you but that is your reading of the law, with, I think we can all agree a fairly hefty bias. A bias that you are more than welcome to have. You are closing your eyes to the numerous exceptions in this law and really stretching the premise of cyclist persecution and segregation.
Yes, in your philosophy this law should not exist and if it didn't there would be no reason to have exceptions. But we can also agree that in your opinion there really shouldn't be a bike lane at all, which is again an opinion you are more than entitled to have.
So lets recap, you're not thrilled with bike lanes, and you really don't like laws requiring you to use them.
That's cool. It is my opinion though that there are enough exceptions in this law, especially for an experienced cyclist who wishes to bike vehicularly. One of the first portions of the law states if the cyclist is moving slower than traffic then they should be in the bike lane, if you're moving faster than traffic instant bike lane out. You've stated before that it is rude to be in traffic if you are impeding traffic (taking the lane.) Though if you feel the bike lane is unsafe that is also an instant out of the bike lane, road debris (which you are fond of pointing out,) along with the door zone would be perfect examples of the lane being hazardous. Again, as I stated before, the law seems to leave the decision to what is hazardous up to the rider. You believe that most lanes by there very nature are hazardous, so that would be your logic in avoiding them.
This really begs the question, has anyone in California been cited under this provision?
As an aside on my ride to get coffee at lunch I saw two USC students one exiting a sidewalk onto a crosswalk, the other riding on the wrong side of the street plow into each other. No serious injuries, but each of course blaming the other for the accident. I guess they don't have any cyclist education on this campus.