Helmet Head

A cycling advocate friend of mine has recently convinced me that CA 21202, and similar laws in other states and jurisdictions, which generally restrict cyclists to the side of all roads, should be repealed. Here is the argument that basically persuaded me, in my words. Do you agree (after reading this OP, please vote)?

Before we look at 21202 in detail consider that on roads with only one lane in the given direction, laws like California's 21654 requires "any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time" to be "driven as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb".

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21654.htm

Further, on roads with more than one lane in the given direction, 21654 requires "any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time" to be "driven in the right-hand lane for traffic".

Note that no distinction is made for how much slower. For example, a bulldozer driver operating at, say, 12 mph on a multi-lane 55 mph highway with wide outside lanes and wide paved shoulders is not obligated to straddle the shoulder. As long as he is in the "right-hand lane for traffic", this is considered, safe, reasonable and legal. Further, if the same guy jumps off the bulldozer and hops on a Honda Trail 70 and operates in the center of that right-hand lane at 12 mph, he's operating perfectly legally. But if he pulls over and basically exchanges the mini-bike's motor for a pair of pedals by hopping on a bicycle and rides in the exact same position at the exact same speed, he's in violation of 21202, as you'll soon see. Why? Is this right? Why discriminate against cyclists like this?

We have one more law to review before we get into 21202. That is the so-called cyclist-rights-enabling law, 21200:

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm

Some folks might argue that 21202 is required because 21654 applies to "any vehicle operating...", and bicycles are technically not vehicles in CA. But 21200 makes this argument moot, since it clearly states that bicycle riders are subject to the same "provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle", which includes 21654.

So, what does 21202 do that is not already done by 21654? Basically, the main difference is that it restricts cyclists, and only cyclists, to ride as close as practicable to the right side even when there is more than one traffic lane in the same direction. I contend this law is unfair and discriminatory, and bicycling advocates should be strongly opposed to it. If restricting drivers of other slow vehicles to the right side is not reasonable or necessary when other same-direction lanes are available for passing, why is it necessary or reasonable to put this restriction on bicyclists? Read 21202 for yourself:

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

For the sake of this discussion, the exceptions are irrelevant, except to note that the availability of additional same-direction traffic lanes is not one of the listed exceptions (as it is in 21654). But you can follow the link and read the whole law for yourself. I recommend that you do, and also find, read and know the related law from your jurisdiction if you're not from CA.

So, why target any person operating a bicycle specifically? How is this consistent with 21200, which says that every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights applicable to the driver of a vehicle?

By the way, if you're wondering whether The Notion that cyclists have a general obligation to stay out of the way of motor traffic, just because they are on bicycles exists in our culture, you need to look no further than the blatant official sanction of The Notion in laws like 21202.

Getting discriminatory and unfair anti-bike laws like 21202 repealed should be a high priority for bicycling advocates. Laws like 21202 serve as an official sanction of the widespread but faulty notion that cyclists should have a general obligation to get and stay out of the way of motor traffic that probably inhibits countless millions from getting their bike out of their garages and onto the roads. We need to stop wasting time on trying to get tiny marginal improvements in cycling popularity (two men, Greg LeMond and Lance Armstrong, have probably done far more for increasing the popularity of cycling in this country in the last 25 years than all of us cycling advocates and facilities combined), and start dealing with the root cause: The widespread prevalance of The Notions that cars and bikes simply don't mix, and should be separated as much as possible; and that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars, period. Getting discriminatory laws that officially sanction this Notion is probably as good a place to start as any. Is there anything more important or effective we can do?

Let's do it!

Your thoughts, comments and questions, as well as your vote in the attached poll, are appreciated.

Edit: please read some of the discussion before voting (if it's not too late). One member has noted that post #16 presented a more convincing argument for him than did this OP.

MarkS

Yes. The publicity gained when the repeal attempt is made might hammer home the concept that biker's have the right to be on the road too. It would remove much of the ambiguity of the current law if bikers always had the right to the full #1 lane whenever lane-count > 1.

Its strange that 21200 refers to "highway" whereas 21202 refers to "roadway". Most of the "real" highways here are off limits to bicycles anyways. Was this a typo in the original text, or does it imply that bikers don't have rights except in those rare cases when they're allowd on "highways" ?

sbhikes

I believe we need to get rid of the notion that bicyclists need to stay out of the way of motorists, whether that notion exists in the head of car drivers or bicyclists themselves. But the problem existst that unlike a tractor or a slower moving automobile, a bicycle physcially can get out of the way in most places (as can a mini-bike--and next time you see one on a road it can't go the speed limit on, see if he doesn't also get out of the way). So unless you can get hoards of cyclists to NOT get out of the way, then whatever you put in the law isn't going to matter much in practice.

Cyclaholic

Good point, Diane. If a bike is only 2-3 ft wide, offers zero collision protection, and can barely manage a small percentage of the posted speed limit then why should it be entitlede to an entire lane? It sounds to me like these laws don't go far enough to protect the unwary from the ridiculous and extremely dangerous propaganda pushed by VC zealots.

Those laws simply reflect the reality that roads belong primarily to cars and truck, not bicycles.

San Rensho 

I dont understand what the problem is. You conveniently leave out the text of the law which states that cyclists can take the entire lane:

3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

What the law says is that you should stay to the right when practicable, and then says you can take up the whole lane if it is too narrow for both a car and a bike to be safely next to each other in the same lane. I have no problem letting cars pass me on the left if the lane is wide enough for me and the car to safely share the lane.

The statute has an implied "reasonable person" standard for determining what is a substandard width lane. Reasonable people in the position of a cyclist would generally agree that there are very few roads that have a right lane that is safe for both bikes and cars to travel side by side in, therefore, in most cases, the cyclists are entitled to take up the entire lane.

I don't think you will get very far with an equal protection argument that bicyclists are being discriminated against. Bicyclists are not a protected class, like gender, race, ethnicity, which require that the government have a compelling state interest before they can pass laws which discriminate against them.

I applaud your spirit in protecting the rights of cyclists but we have to pick our battles, and this one does not look like a winner.

DCCommuter

Traffic law has its own lingo. "Highway" as used in traffic law does not mean a highway as is commonly understood, it means the entire road, shoulders and all, of any public road. "Roadway" is just the traveled part of the road, the travel lanes, not the shoulders.

What is really confusing is that sometimes they say "roadway" and sometimes they say "lane for traffic," when those two terms are synonymous. I'm convinced that the anti cyclist legislation was deliberately written in a way to sound like it means the opposite of what it really does.

DCCommuter

To take that argument even further, unlike gender, race and ethnicity, cycling is choice.

DCCommuter

On a road where passing opportunities are rare, it really is easier to pass a cyclist if he keeps to the right. Imagine a road 22' feet wide, in two 11' foot lanes with no shoulder. This is a pretty typical older, unimproved road on the east coast. A cyclist can ride in the right-most 5' pretty comfortably. If traffic is light, a motorist can move into the oncoming lane by two feet to pass and leave 9' in the oncoming lane, in the unlikely event another car comes along, and still have 8' for himself. To recap, the 22' total is divided 9', 8', 5'. This really is sharing the road.

For the cyclist, positioning is tough, because you want to encourage people to leave their lane to pass, but you don't want to obstruct traffic. I ride on a 22' wide road almost every day, and I ride a few feet from the edge, and I find that 99% of motorists "get it" and move out a few feet to pass. I get the occasional buzzer who tries to pass without leaving the lane, but the most irritating are the drivers who refuse to pass. They seem to be convinced that it's wrong to cross the yellow line for any reason, so they'll follow me, backing up traffic, until I pull over to let them pass.

sbhikes

I don't know if you are serious or mocking me but I do not agree that roads belong primarily to cars and trucks. They belong to the public regardless of what mode of transportation they use.

I'm just stating that while it is very annoying if you can't pass somebody's slow-moving motorhome, most reasonable people don't get too upset unless the motorhome doesn't take the next opprtunity to allow you to pass. But bikes are so small so it's not like anybody has to wait for the next turnout or passing lane. They simply subtract your width from the total width and conclude that if you moved over right now they could pass.

Bekologist

So this law says bikes moving slower than traffic should keep to the right, and also guarantees the right to use the full lane when necessary?

MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

MarkS

I don't think HH is making an equal protection claim.

But in this country, we do protect various kinds of choices. Is it OK to discriminate someone who is Baptist because they choose to be Baptist? Or against atheists because they choose not to believe in some dogma? Or against gays because they choose to have sex?

People should not be discriminated against merely because they wish to use the roads they paid for using vehicles that don't consume fossil fuels and don't pollute.

Helmet Head

You're talking about a 2-lane road with one lane in each direction. This situation is already covered by 21654 which requires drivers of ALL slow vehicles, including bicyclists, to keep as far right as practicable on these roads (see the OP). 21202 is completely redundant and pointless on 2-lane highways (roads).


I believe you're talking about a 2-lane road with one lane in each direction. This situation is already covered by 21654. See above.

On roads with more than one lane going the direction the cyclist is going, the adjacent lane can be used to pass the slow moving vehicle, including the cyclist.

There is nothing to prevent the cyclist from choosing to keep to the side when there are 2 lanes in his direction. But if a cyclist choose to stay in a centerish position in the right lane, why forbid it?

Cyclaholic

No, not mocking you at all, just stating what I beleive to be true.

Bekologist

It prevents the unimpeded travel of faster traffic in that lane overtaking the bicyclist. If the lane is wide enough to share, the bicyclist should keep to the right to allow fair lane sharing. With a dedicated, preferential travel lane for bicycles, this is for the most part not necessary.

MarkS

One of the arguments for bike lanes is that they may encourage more people to get out there and bike. The same argument could be made for group cycling.

I'm thinking that under current law a group of cyclists (peloton?) would have to travel single file, which may not be the safest nor certainly the most convenient arrangement. Lifting the restriction that bikers always have to take the edge, even when there are two lanes of roadway in their direction, would encourage the formation of groups which in turn would promote the acceptance of biking.

Helmet Head

We're not talking about freeways. We're talking about ordinary public right-of-way roads with all kinds of normal interruptions to traffic flow... Traffic lights, stop signs, drivers slowing, stopping, and accelerating for parking purposes, drivers slowing, accelerating and stopping for intersection turns, pedestrians crossing, slow moving vehicles besides bicycles, etc., etc. Why single out bicycles as being the only mode of travel that has no practical right to impede (like that's such a terrible thing) faster traffic?


I explained why I left it out in the OP. Because the exceptions are irrelevant to my argument. But since you brought them up, I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone more familiar with 21202, including all of its exceptions, than me. I've spent a lot of time reading it, thinking about it, and writing about it. I've written dozens and dozens of posts about it on this forum alone.

You might not be familiar with the history of 21202, or how those exceptions got put in 21202 (circa early 1970s) in the first place. It was a fluke. As the law was being written and reviewed, early versions did not have them. But a couple of cycling advocates were part of a committee that reviewed them. One of those was John Forester. Trying to dissuade them from passing the "cyclists must always keep to the right" law in the first place, he pointed out problem after problem with the law. His main point was that the law would not withhold judicial scrutiny when challenged. They asked for specific examples, which he started to provide... when cyclists are traveling the same speed as traffic, when cyclists need to turn left, when there are obstacles, when the lane is too narrow, etc., etc. He stopped when he realized they were taking notes, and that he was not convincing them to not have this law, but he was giving them the language they needed to make the law more constitutionally acceptable.

The result is an obscure list of exceptions that hardly anyone even knows about. In practical terms, they're only in there just in case the law is challenged as being unconstitutional. In theory, because of these exceptions, cyclists have the legal/technical right to leave the side of the road for just about any legitimate reason they may need. But that's only in theory. In practice, since most people don't know what these exceptions are, including many law enforcement officers and most cyclists, they have no effect. That's why above I used the term practical right. Cyclists have no practical right to leave the side of the road if it impedes traffic, and this is painfully obvious if you ever watch cyclists ride in traffic. Most cyclists, even experienced cyclists, seem to mostly ride in accordance to the principle of not impeding faster traffic, period. If they need to turn left, they don't even try to negotiate, they wait and hope for a gap. If there is no gap, they're SOL. They assume they're invisible, and ride accordingly, careful to only use pavement not needed at the moment by others. To adhere to this principle makes cycling in traffic much more difficult and stressful than it needs to be, and discourages many cyclists from riding in traffic at all, and, I believe, discourages many times more from taking up cycling at all.

In this forum there was a thread recently about an incident in the L.A. hills where a group of cyclists was pulled over by a CHP officer for not keeping to the side. When they cited 21202 and that the lane width was substandard, the officer responded that what mattered wass the spirit of the law, which is that cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way of cars. If you're not sure where he might have gotten that idea, read the first sentence of 21202 again, and you tell me what you think the spirit is.

In short, the 21202 exceptions are obscure technicalities that almost no one knows about. For all intents and purposes, with respect to how cyclists act and are treated, the 21202 exceptions might as well not even be there. All most people know is that there is a law that obligates cyclists to keep to the side in order to not impede faster traffic, period (see Bek's response for an example of someone who thinks this way). And that's the law we must oppose, in the name of cycling.

Helmet Head

Cyclaholic wrote: "Those laws simply reflect the reality that roads belong primarily to cars and truck, not bicycles." and later clarified, "just stating what I beleive to be true."

Roads belong primarily to cars and trucks, not bicycles. There you have it folks. This is coming from someone who is not only a cyclist, but supposedly a cycling advocate. If this does not convince you of how prevalent the notion that cyclists have an obligation to not impede faster traffic is, I don't know what will.

It is an all too common human experience... We have met the enemy and they is us.


To someone who believes the roads belong to cars and trucks, it is no surprise that you would see someone who advocates for and defends cyclist rights as a zealot.

Helmet Head

+1


But with 21202 on the books, drivers rightfully feel justified in bullying cyclists to get out of their way. I don't think drivers are ever going to take into account subsection (3)... can you really see some yahoo in his F250 on his way to way to work, thinking, "Well, this lane is of substandard width, so I will change lanes to pass instead of honking at that cyclist". As a result, cyclists are understandably intimidated by motorists.

To improve the situation, we have to get 21202 off the books, at least as a first step. Will that solve the problem? Of course, not. But I think it will be a significant step in the right direction, and that's why I think it should be a high priority for cycling advocacy. I have some other ideas too, as you know, but I don't want to turn this thread into yet another discussion about those.

It's hard enough to convince cyclists that riding a bit more assertively is safer (as you know with your sidewalk riding friends). But when you have a law that justifies intimidating cyclists, it's that much harder.

HoustonB

Since I voted the 3rd Yes option it seems I'm obliged to explain why.

The OP did not contain a compelling argument. Post #16 did. I had read elsewhere about Forester’s inadvertent contribution to the exceptions and this reminder swung me over. Singling out bicycles is nonsense given that one could be towing a trailer much wider than one’s bike. Also the width of the lane might have considerably less importance than the width of the vehicle that wants to pass. I am far happier with a motorcycle passing me at speed than an SUV.

I have no desire to hog the lane or impede traffic to my rear (unless it’s a hummer), that said, I think this law discriminates. However if all references to bicycles were changed to slow moving vehicles I would have less cause to argue.

atbman

By definition, laws cannot protect the unwary. Anyone who is unwary, in a motor vehicle or not, is likely to be involved in a collision.

Roads, even in the car-centric US belong to the people who use them, regardless of what vehicle they drive/ride. As for VC zealots, while there may be grounds for disagreements in limited areas, generations of experience show that VC is the most effective way of reducing risks inherent in cycling on the road.

I've ridden in the UK and Canada and was mildly anxious the first time I rode on the "wrong" side of the road, but found that there was no noticeable difference in driver behaviour - probably because I rode in what you might call a VC manner. As a result, my movement on the road was predictable, drivers didn't get excited by my presence and I found Toronto and the surrounding countryside no worse than Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham or London (tho' London can be a bit scary, simply because of the sheer volume of traffic in the centre).

One thing which could obviously be improved are the standards required to pass the driving test. I once saw a programme involving the Florida one and it was a joke. It took place on what was essentially a car park with a few traffic signs scattered about and appeared to be mainly a test of a driver's ability to recognise a top sign. It certainly didn't test the candidate's ability to drive safely in traffic.

I would hope that in other parts of the US, they treat driver competence more seriously.

Bekologist

is this a civil rights crusade for bicyclists, or failure to recognize the reality of 'traffic flow'?


Slower traffic keep right; use full lane when necessary.

Biking 12 MPH on a 40 MPH arterial is impeding traffic, no matter how many driveways and stoplights there are. Is Helmet Head confusing riding a motorcycle with operating a bicycle again?

People don't push wheelbarrows, strollers, grocery carts, rollerblade, jog, drive golf carts, operate senior scooters, or do anything ELSE at speeds slower than vehicular traffic in right hand lanes. Why WOULDN'T bikes be expected to keep to the right?

Helmet Head

To start, read all the obscure technical exceptions in 21202.
Those are all legitimate reasons to not be at the side, but the practical effect of the law is that most cyclists keep to the side of the road even when those exceptions apply, and motorists expect cyclists to keep to the side even when those exceptions apply. That's the problem.

Bekologist

I doubt the 'law' is what keeps cyclists to the side of the road; it is traffic dynamics.

I didn't ask when does a cyclist not keep to the side, i asked, 'why wouldn't slower traffic (a bicyclist)be expected to keep right?'

Slower traffic keep right; use full lane when necessary. sounds like one of those 'universal rules of the road' you always prattle on about, doesn't it, Helmet Head?

San Rensho 

So I think you agree with me that the law, as written, allows cyclists to take the entire lane.

If police misinterpret the laws, and ticket cyclists for taking the whole lane, the courts are available to redress that wrong.

If cyclists and drivers are not aware of "obscure" laws, then the solution is education, not making another law (which will be obscure because who the heck except people like you or me and others on this site take any interest in bike laws?) which will muddy the waters even more.

HoustonB

I do not recall reading anything in this thread about replacement (or modification) and was under the impression it was simply repeal.

My main bone of contention is that this law effectively says that we as cyclists have to stay to the right the majority of the time – you might try to argue that the opposite is true, but if this were indeed the case surely the requirement to stay right and it’s exceptions would be inverted.

By telling cyclists that they must stay to the right for the majority of the time – the law tells motorists that this is what they can expect, the majority of the time that they encounter a cyclist ahead of them. There are two major problems with this:

1. Whenever a motorist encounters a cyclist exercising their right to the whole lane – you can bet almost 100% of motorists will not be familiar with the exceptions to this law and will have a less than positive reaction.

2. This has to be the only law in the U.S. (and anywhere else) that plainly states that one group needs to defer to another group's abilities to make (in some cases) sub 4 second life or death decisions – even though it might be statistically rare, do you really like the idea of someone born with the ability to play a banjo with their toes, making a decision about whether or not their pickup truck can fit when passing a bike of random width (today you are towing your trailer) on a lane also of random width. Personally I think there should be no need to make any instant snap decisions – lets make it so that the driver does not have right-of-way when passing a cyclist (if HH is correct) and must slow down. This has to be made a non-thinking instinctive thing that ALL DRIVERS MUST DO IN ALL SITUATIONS WHERE THE CYCLIST IS ANY POSITION WITHIN THE SAME LANE. If one’s foot is already actually pressing on the brake, then it is unarguable that thinking-time will be increased.

“If police misinterpret” – the if is redundant and redress in the courts would be acceptable if that really was reasonable and not a lottery that invariably gets won by the party that buys all of the tickets.