Helmet Head

Just ran into this section of the CA vehicle code...https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21658.htm

If I understand this correctly, and apply it to bike "lanes" I suspect it means you must ride entirely within the bike lane when you're riding in the bike lane. Not even your elbow can cross the vertical plane that is parallel to the stripe, much less your handlebars, or riding on the stripe.

I suspect other states and countries have similar laws.

BLs: -1
WOLs: +1

chipcom 

"as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane" - we gotta brush you up on interpreting legalese. "nearly as practical" is a far cry from "only".

sbhikes

I think you would like India, Serge. Everybody ignores the lane lines. It limits your options, you know, to be in a lane.

It's really quite easy to understand. There's a line. It demarcates a lane. The law says you should drive in a lane until you want to move out of it, and then you shouldn't do that unless it's safe. I don't see any problems with that.

As far as your little score card for WOLs vs BLs. WOLs can't possibly count under this law because there is no lane there. You're at the mercy of whatever laws there may be about two vehicles operating the same lane. Maybe you should look that up.

Helmet Head

Yes, "nearly as practical" is a far cry from "only". But I didn't say "only", so what's your point?

Of course if you have a good practical reason to do what you're doing, the restriction does not apply. That goes for any traffic law. But I'm not sure "avoiding potential debris" by riding on the few inches of pavement in the bike lane that is right next to the stripe that traffic constantly sweeps clean, perhaps the most common reason many cyclists do not ride fully within a bike lane, would count as "nearly as practical within" the bike lane. Especially when Diane is happily riding along fully within the lane right behind you.

Bekologist

those bike lines will place the average cyclist further from the curb than WOL's.

BL +1
WOL -1

jjvw

I ride on or near the stripe whenever I can. Often times I spill over into the traffic lane depending on the time of day. It seems cars give me more room when I assert myself. I also like to avoid the unexpeced opening car door.

Bekologist

is someone checking the legality of my elbows when i'm riding??? Jeez, i've got a LOT of stuff to be worrying about now.

sbhikes

I think the rule of thumb is where your wheels are. They measure whether you are over the limit line at an intesection by the location of your front wheels, the distance from the curb by the distance from your wheels. I can't see why the measurement wouldn't be the same for lane lines.

Helmet Head

I can't argue with that.

Helmet Head

Interesting theory. I'd never heard of the "front wheel rule" applied to lateral distances.

A big difference, however, is that for limit lines the law specifically refers to the front wheels, and, in particular, it does not say something like "the vehicle will be fully behind the limit line".

But with this law it says the vehicle will be fully within the lane. We can argue about elbows not being part of the vehcile, but surely handlebars must be within the lane.

sbhikes

The lateral distance of your car from the curb is measured by the distance between your right wheels (not the front wheels) and the curb (or the left wheels if you are on a one-way street on the other side). This distance is supposed to be less than 18".

Oh, and it's not a theory.

Bekologist

why is mr head so anti cyclist?

cycling -1.

"surely handlebars must be within the lane"...... BROTHER.

until they cops start handing out tickets for riding the stripe, head, why bother with your damnation? Are you trying to illegitimize a style of riding a LOT of riders practice to avoid potentially unsafe road conditions?

bicyclists -1.

Bekologist

Cars are supossed to drive within 18" of the right edge of the lanes, Sbikes?

WOL -1,000.

BL +2

donnamb 

I dunno, Bek. You've never posted pics or video of your elbows. How else would we know?

Bekologist

my elbows are classified as lethal traffic obstructions in 47 states.

derath

Ok this whole mess is getting a little nutty.

Honestly, when I am cycling I am not really thinking That much about the subtleties of the law. I bike in the safest way possible for the given road conditions. With the exception of the obvious altercations (running red lights or stop signs) I don't spend much time thinking "I wonder if I would get pulled over for this"

-D

N_C

Why would you want to ride on the painted strip anyway, legal or not? It is wet & slippery & wet weather & can be the same in dry. Unless you think you're on a high wire & trying out for a circus act on a bicycle, why do it?

jjvw

(?) How many times have you slipped and fallen on the painted strip? I often find that it's the smoothest, quietest part of the road. Also, riding in a straight line is a great skill to learn.

N_C

+1

HH, as much as I agree with you on VC issues, this one is over the top. Why even worry about it? Most cops will interprite the law differently & I doubt unless they know for sure a cyclist has to use the BL in accordance with the law they will even harrass you for not riding in the BL. And even if there are signs posted that state cyclists must use BL it will not state the verbatim verbage of the ordinance in the OP.

To answer the questions, I would interprite it as the wheels of the bike have to be within the BL on the inside of the painted line. You obviously spend too much time thinking of odd ways to interprite ordinances. Tell you what go try it & post your results here to let us know if you got busted for your elbows, handlebars, etc. sticking out of the BL into the travel lane of traffic.

N_C

On a wet one, a few times, but when changing lanes too fast, a dry one, never, yet.

sggoodri

I ride on or near the bike lane stripe in order to stay out of the debris that accumulates in our local bike lanes.

In a nearby county a cyclist was struck from behind by an overtaking motorist, and the police assigned fault to the cyclist for crossing the shoulder stripe. The police said that had the cyclist stayed in the travel lane, the fault would have been the motorist's, but since the cyclist was crossing the stripe back and forth, i.e. attempting to ride the lane line, he violated the law.

This is ironic because police in this area have, on occasion, also stopped cyclists for riding consistently in the travel lane instead of using the shoulder wherever possible, i.e. requiring cyclists to frequently cross the fog line wherever space appears to its right, and cross back into the lane wherever that space disappears. Shoulder space is very inconsistent on our state roads, typically only a foot or two if it exists at all, often full of gravel at unpaved driveways, and disappearing often, particularly at intersections.

Dchiefransom

********** We are taught to drive centered in the lane, no matter which lane we are in.

Bekologist

so, timid cyclists and average cyclists that would be more prone to continually try to escape the travel lane to the shoulder and back again in the face of overtaking traffic would be better served by either wider, more consistent shoulders or bike lanes on the road itself.

bike lanes +1.
poor road conditions in steve's state -1.
cops in steves state -2.

sggoodri

Yes, but you could say the same about unstriped wide outside through lanes.

Bekologist

not if there's any shoulder attached to them, steve. timid and average cyclists would likely be riding edge of road, in and out of the shoulder, and in a not very visible road position.

Additionally, and mentioned earlier in the thread (which HH actually agreed with!) For average bicyclists, Wide Outside Lanes do nothing to discourage curbhugging and provide a less visible road position for average cyclists than bike lanes.

bikelanes +1
wide outside lanes -1
steve's negative take on bike lanes -1