Advocacy & Safety - CHP Officer: "Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"

Is advocating for the right of cyclists to get in the way of cagers important? How important?

Consider this account of a recent event in Los Angeles (I got it by email):



While leading a weekly group of 100+ riders, descending Mulholland Hwy at nearly 40 MPH a CHP officer pulled up behind us and used his PA to order us out of the roadway. At the time of his request, I was riding on the edge stripe. The shoulder lane was minimal, perhaps, just a couple of feet and in poor condition. The lane width is probably 12 feet. In my opinion, I was riding in the furthest right position on the road in regards to safety. I understand the street was signed for 35 MPH so I was slightly over the speed limit. But realistically speaking I/we were moving at the "normal flow of traffic". Anyway, as we approached another rider I merged left 2 feet to overtake the slower rider. This sent the CHP officer into a road rage. The CHP officer then ordered the entire group to pull to the side of the road.

The group complied and began slowing and moving into the shoulder lane. At this point the officer sped in front of me, abruptly pulled to the right, (now being in front of me) and then applied the brakes extremely hard. (leaving skid marks on the roadway). The group and myself, not expecting such an unpredictable maneuver, wound up running into the back of the officer's car. The injuries to the riders were all minor, cuts/bruises etc. (but who wants to race a 15 lb bike, applying sprinting forces to a machine that has had unengineered forces applied to the forks, handle bars and head tube). Numerous, CHP officers flooded the scene and none of them were willing to pull out their CA VC so I could read 21202 with them and discuss the situation. One officer said, " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars". The SGT on scene said he was too upset by the situation to discuss the matter. But he did claim that we have just seen the end of group bicycle rides in California.
What do you think of the opinion of this CHP officer... " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"?

Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars? Do you agree or disagree?
Is this just the opinion of one rogue officer, or does it reflect the opinion of many officers, perhaps the majority, not to mention the opinion of the vast majority of the public, and even the majority of cyclists? How important is it for cycling advocacy to change this widespread opinion?

How can we cycling advocates argue against the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars while "advocating" for facilities like bike lanes whose primary purpose is to give cyclists "our own space" out of the way of cars?

Is not advocating for bike lanes, any bike lanes, supporting the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cagers? Is that a notion that bicycling advocates should be supporting?

What do you think of the opinion of this CHP officer... " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"?

Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars? Do you agree or disagree?


I think it sucks, bad. But law enforcement stating "I don't care about the letter of the law" is par for the course these days.

I think the CHP officer is pretty dumb, and should be reported.

Cyclists don't need to stay out of the way of cars. They need to be where it is safe to cycle, and overtaking vehicles need to pass safely.

A couple of years ago there was an effort to change the CA law to make it clear not only in the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, that cyclists do not have to stay out of the way of cagers, but the bill died in committee, mostly because the CHP and AAA opposed it.

It's time for Cal. roadies to do a CM. :)

However, I don't see this as "the end of group riding." More likely, one hot-headed cop whose fellow officers and sergeant wanted to appear to back him up. But this is an important issue IMO and needs to be addressed. Civil suits are definitely in order! I know you Cal. riders will keep us posted.

I am beginning to think that group rides are very bad. . .and am personally going to stop. The last two rides I have been on included some 40 folks with a wide range of skills strung out over maybe 100 yards with no real attention paid to stop lights/signs, etc. If the first few go thru then everyone seemed to follow. . .several times the group made dangerous turns, etc with little regard to the laws or the motorists. I think this type of behaviour (that seems inherent in any ride of more than 6-8 folks) leads cops and motorists to not like us. . .

After thinking about it, the key fact here is that it's a CHP officer, and not a normal LAPD officer or LA Sheriff. Those guys normally don't have any problems with cyclists. Now that you mention the CHP is a major opponent of pro-cycling laws, this makes a lot more sense.

In LA, the CHP is mostly relegated to the freeways, of which we're mostly not allowed to be on. Maybe they don't come into contact with enough cyclists to be used to them?

Police Harrassment, definitely.

I think the CHP is bull****ting about the spirit of the law, but I think this CHP reflects the attitude of the majority of motorists. I think if you want to advocate VC, you have to change attitudes. A large task.

There is no conflict between advocating bike lanes and road rights. No one is advocating that bicycles should be on every freeway, it's acknowledged that there are some facilities that are car only, some that must be shared, and some that are bike only. But to assert that bicyclists do not have rights to the road is bad.

There is no conflict between advocating bike lanes and road rights. No one is advocating that bicycles should be on every freeway, it's acknowledged that there are some facilities that are car only, some that must be shared, and some that are bike only. But to assert that bicyclists do not have rights to the road is bad.
Let me ask my question in the terms that you're using.

Okay, freeways are car-only (except for shoulders on some), and bike paths are bike-only. No problem.

The issue is regarding "shared" roads, like Mulholland Drive. In particular, on "shared" roads, do cyclists have a legal or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars?

More importantly, is a bike lane on a shared road an official sanctioning of the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars? Why or why not?

I think you need to be more carefull when you choose to pass someone!

:^]

jw

It seems to me that the officer was driving dangerously by deliberately forcing cyclists into emergency stops. He should be reported to his superiors. However, he might be able to argue that the group did not respond quickly and clearly to what he regarded, (however wrongly) to a lawful instruction by him.

As for his opinion about the rights of cyclists vis-a-vis drivers, it might be useful if a group such as the one affected, carried some copies of the relevant California vehicle code.

In addition, the group needs to have some contingency plans for a variety of circumstances, particularly how they deal swiftly with an unplanned interruption in their ride. This is particularly important for a group of that size. If they are not all experienced a group riding, then problems will occur, some of them leading to dangerous manoeuvres or conditions for some or all of the participants.

I have seen even experienced riders in my own area behaving as if the traffic regulations don't apply to them, so it isn't just confined to the US.

Ps. My remarks shouldn't be construed as a criticism of this particular group, merely as a general comment on the problems involved in group riding

HH even you stay out of the way of cars. You have described your technique as riding down the center of the lane, checking your mirror periodically for cars approaching from behind, then pulling over to let them pass.

Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.

Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.

Right. And in situations when you are riding downhill in a narrow lane at or even above the speed limit there is no reason why a cyclist would not "take the lane". Having a large group doing the same makes no difference. Any driver who attempts to pass would be breaking the law, (speeding, unsafe passing).

If you read the applicable section of the code:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

what is interesting is that it is written in a way that easily allows a casual reader to believe that it means exactly the opposite of what it means -- that cyclists do need to stay out of the way of cars. In that way it is similar to many states; I believe the "as close as practicable" language comes from the model uniform traffic code. My suspicion is that it was written that way to get legislators to vote for something that was the opposite of what they were really voting for!

Anyway, this episode, while sad, is an opportunity for advocacy -- cool, reasoned advocacy.

It seems to me that the officer was driving dangerously by deliberately forcing cyclists into emergency stops.

No kidding. The CHP hates bikers. At the last Critical Mass they were there, obviously pissed with us, and the deliberate recklessness with which they rode their motorcycles among the bikers scared me, and will make me resent the CHP for a long long time to come. They are *******s, they are essentially the security guards of the graveyard that is the freeways, and they make a large part of their living off the racket that is the ticketing system. Hiding in the bushes waiting for some poor chap to come along who can be given a ticket - great going, Ponch. You're a real hero now. Don't you have a bicycle to run over now and harrass the biker? **** the CHP.

Was this a Club Lagrange group ride? I used to ride with them weekly, up Nichols Canyon, across Mulholland, down Benedict Canyon. As we climed to Mulholland, we became so spread out that motorists had no problem passing small groups of 2 or 3 of us, one at a time. We also chose a time of the week, just after dawn on a weekend morning, when traffic was particularly light.

If the cyclists in the group ride cited by Serge had been similarly spread out, rather than in a Critical Mass like formation, I doubt the CHP officer would have had any issue with them whatsoever.

__
Disclosure: I generally ride solo. I do occasionally participate in SMALL group rides, but I specifically avoid large group rides, for various reasons stated by others in this thread.

This thread raises several interesting, important issues. Do we have a right to use the main travel lane, particularly when the shoulder is dangerous or nonexistent? Yes. Do we have the right to impede traffic unnecessarily? No. Did the CHP officer create a dangerous situation by stopping so abruptly, and should he be reported for so doing? Absolutely.

This thread raises several interesting, important issues. Do we have a right to use the main travel lane, particularly when the shoulder is dangerous or nonexistent? Yes. Do we have the right to impede traffic unnecessarily? No. .

Can traveling at or above the speed limit be considered "impeding traffic"? I don't think so.

When I'm caging (driving my car) I have for several years now, always abided by the speed limit. If cars are stuck behind me, too bad, it's payback for all the buzzing I've gotten on my bike.

If I can't use the lane I might as well throw my bike in the dumpster.

I think an officer who openly says he doesn't care about the law is an officer who needs to find another profession, and soon

Let me ask my question in the terms that you're using.

Okay, freeways are car-only (except for shoulders on some), and bike paths are bike-only. No problem.

The issue is regarding "shared" roads, like Mulholland Drive. In particular, on "shared" roads, do cyclists have a legal or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars?

More importantly, is a bike lane on a shared road an official sanctioning of the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars? Why or why not?

The problem is that the scenerio you first present does not exist... On freeways the situation is "cars only." But no where is there a "bicycles only" situation.

On city streets pedestrians are supposed to have ROW, but often motorists take it, on paths and MUPs, again pedestrians are supposed to have ROW; but in no case do cyclists ever have accepted ROW (even where they should, due to traffic laws, cyclists ROW is often challenged by motorists).

A while back someone presented a hiearchy of ROW that was similar to that followed by air traffic and sea traffic... Something along those lines should be implemented for surface traffic.

Can traveling at or above the speed limit be considered "impeding traffic"? I don't think so.

When I'm caging (driving my car) I have for several years now, always abided by the speed limit. If cars are stuck behind me, too bad, it's payback for all the buzzing I've gotten on my bike.

+2... I rather really enjoy driving at or slightly below speed limit just for this reason alone.

- show me the pictures of this incident or another web site detailing the incident...

- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...

- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?

- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?

- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...

Ohio maybe, but not Calif....

:-)

If you read the applicable section of the code:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

what is interesting is that it is written in a way that easily allows a casual reader to believe that it means exactly the opposite of what it means -- that cyclists do need to stay out of the way of cars. In that way it is similar to many states; I believe the "as close as practicable" language comes from the model uniform traffic code. My suspicion is that it was written that way to get legislators to vote for something that was the opposite of what they were really voting for!


Good observation. Early versions in committee only obligated cyclists to keep to the side. When Forester and one or two others brought up various issues (what about cyclists traveling the same speed as traffic? What about making left turns? What about obstacles? etc. etc.), they took notes, and modified the proposed law with exceptions for all the points raised. When Forester figured out what they were doing, he stopped. In his own words, from an email from last week:



Serge has asked me to comment on those traffic laws that discriminate against cyclists and my efforts regarding them.

Near the end of 1973 I discovered that a California government committee named the California Statewide Bicycle Committee was meeting to prepare revisions to the traffic laws regarding the operation of bicycles. I was interested because I had recently been convicted for continuing to ride on the roadway, instead of the sidewalk, in Palo Alto. This CSBC committee had a secret agenda, and, while the fact of its first meeting appeared as a very small paragraph in the newspapers, it had no cyclist members and there had been, apparently, no real attempt to inform the cycling community. I attended the second meeting of the CSBC, and, by convincing them that I was a lawful cyclist because obeying traffic law was best for cyclists, I was admitted as the only cyclist member. Notice, although I hadn't yet worked out the snappiest phrasing, even at that time I believed, as did my cycling colleagues, that "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." We were appalled at the typical unlawful and unskilled behavior of Americans on bicycles, and hoped to aid the situation. In that regard I, and the cycling community in general, were deluded; nay, deliberately misled.

This deceitful start became typical of the bikeway program throughout the nation (and in the other nations in which it took hold, also). Bikeway programs have been founded on mendacious deceit from the very beginning and continue to be so supported, because there is no scientific or engineering support for bikeways.

As I wrote above, the committee had a secret agenda which was never told to me as the only cyclist member; I had to discover it myself, and it took months of service on that committee, which met about once a month, to do so. As I say, I had hopes of improving the behavior of American cyclists. On the contrary, the secret aim of the committee was to impose on all cyclists the unlawful and unskillful behavior of the majority, by means of both discriminatory laws and discriminatory bikeways. The traffic-law revision was the second act, not the first. The first act, which was never told to me, was the completion of bikeway planning by the traffic group at UCLA under contract from California government. The object of the traffic-law revision was to add to California traffic law the mandatory bike-lane law and the mandatory side-path law, as the means of enforcing the bikeway designs, about which I was kept ignorant. By digging around, I discovered the bikeway planning document: State of California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Bikeway Planning Criteria and Guidelines, April 1972. The bikeway designs were largely sidepaths, largely taken from Dutch practice, and horribly dangerous. Indeed, cycling less than five miles on Palo Alto's versions of sidepaths had involved me in far too many imminent collision situations that required superb understanding of traffic and superb bike handling to avoid, and finally in one in which I escaped death or serious injury only by luck, not skill.

I raised as much Hell as I could among California's cyclists. We managed to prevent enactment of a mandatory-sidepath-law; the situations that that created were so obviously dangerous. However, before I discovered the committee's secret aim, I argued against both the mandatory-side-of-the-road law and a proposed mandatory-bike-lane law, on the grounds that both contradicted safe and proper vehicular operation and therefore discriminated against cyclists for the convenience of motorists. The committee, of course, weren't about to aid cyclists by recommending that California have neither of these laws. The tactic that they adopted to prevent judges from finding against these laws on the basis of the contradictions was to insert exceptions into these laws to cover whatever contradictions I argued about. That's how the exceptions got into the laws, as an effort to preserve the discriminatory laws from judicial review. Once I saw what was occurring, I gave up mentioning more contradictions to proper vehicular operation, and because the committee had no understanding of proper cycling it never introduced other exceptions. Many years later, some of the exceptions that I had refrained from mentioning got inserted into these laws.

Some hold that the exceptions have rendered these two discriminatory laws difficult to prosecute. There's some truth in that, but defending oneself, either in a criminal prosecution for disobeying the law or as part of a civil suit in which disobeying the law is claimed to be negligence, requires legal talent that costs money. But, mostly, these two discriminatory laws are effectively used as threats against the large part of the population that doesn't understand cycling issues, and as incentive for active discrimination against cyclists by that portion of the motoring population that despises cyclists.

I repeat my statement from above. Bikeway promotion, and the laws that go with it, right from the beginning and right from the very top of power, have been advocated and excused by skillful mendacity and persuasive propaganda that is based on the prejudices of motorists and preys on the fears and hopes of those who do not understand cycling issues. The prejudice by motorists that bicycle traffic is best out of their way is obvious. The fears are of the safe way of cycling, in the vehicular manner, stimulated by excessive fear of same-direction motor traffic. The hope is that bikeway production significantly reduces motoring. Admission that bikeways are the means of implementing motorists' prejudice is politically unacceptable, both to the motorists and to the bicycle promoters. The fear of vehicular cycling and refusal to recognize that that skill is always necessary condemns those who use it for their own goals. The hope that bikeway production significantly reduces motoring has never materialized and never will.

Consider this quotation from the nation's highest document excusing this bikeway program. The author, Andy Clarke, the nation's foremost bikeway promoter, describes the choice as one between "separating bicyclists from motor vehicles vs. integrating them into the traffic flow and training them to ride in a vehicular style." ("Bicycle Safety-Related Research Synthesis", Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-94-062, April 1995) Consider the mendacity of this statement. Clarke is persuading the reader, without doing so explicitly, that bikeways enable cyclists to operate safely without traffic-cycling skills. That has been the implied, but never explicitly admitted, lie upon which bikeway promotion is founded.

Now do you start to understand why the nation's program for bicycle transportation is an immoral blot upon engineering ethics?

The problem is that the scenerio you first present does not exist...

Gene,

Whether bike only places exist is irrelevant to my point, which addresses segregated onstreet facilities (bike lanes) on "shared" roadways.

Gene,

Whether bike only places exist is irrelevant to my point, which addresses segregated onstreet facilities (bike lanes) on "shared" roadways.

Sorry, you presented it, and I happened to reflect on something just like that the other day... there is no place that cyclists have a declared ROW as "the primary user."

Cyclists are always the "second class citizen" in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the other users of whatever space they are using. Strange situation, eh?

- show me the pictures of this incident or another web site detailing the incident...

- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...

- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?

- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?

- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...

Ohio maybe, but not Calif....

:-)

Link to the law in question:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Discussion of the incident on the LA County Bicycle Coalition list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/

Start with message 5556.

I doubt this was covered by any newspapers.

Link to the law in question:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Discussion of the incident on the LA County Bicycle Coalition list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/

Start with message 5556.

I doubt this was covered by any newspapers.

1. tks for link to law... looks like group rides are in no danger and that bicyclists have the road in CA

2. found the pertinent discussion thread and this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/message/5585

- looks like a complaint will be forthcoming!

- tks!

1. tks for link to law... looks like group rides are in no danger and that bicyclists have the road in CA

2. found the pertinent discussion thread and this post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacbc/message/5585

- looks like a complaint will be forthcoming!

- tks!

Probably the most intersting thing said in that discussion is this:

"One of the most frustrating bits of feedback I keep hearing from law
enforcement agencies and those that ignorantly support their anti-bicycle
attitude on this matter is "we are just trying to keep you safe"."

It sure seems to me that anytime cyclists are traveling in number, they are far more visible then solo cyclists... Safety in numbers, so to speak.

So the officers are way off the mark here!

My understanding is that they've been using the "we are just trying to keep you safe" red herring argument since the first time they tried to get us out of their way.

The embarrassingly tragic thing is how many cyclists, and even cycling advocates, buy that red herring argument hook, line and sinker (e.g., we need bike lanes to make cycling safer!).

"It's for your own safety". Yuppers, that seems to be the official policy of the CHP. We heard that from Officer Holland out of the Sierraville area when he was threatening not to renew the permits next year for the MS150 out of Graeagle.
Of course, following their line of reasoning, I expect them to be demanding that all law abiding citizens start wearing bullet proof vests.
Remember, the CHP beat down the attempt at changing the law so that bike lanes had to be out of the door zone. Their motorcycles cops should have to ride in those bike lanes when there are no cyclists in them.

... The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"...

Uh,,I realize I am old and stupid, but what the heck is "the spirit of the law"? Helmethead, it sounds as though this particular CHP officer has been taking lessons from some Massachusetts state police officers. (or possibly vice-versa)

I'll explain that: Memorial Drive runs along the charles river, in Cambridge MA. It's a busy road, built pre-WWII. It has two lanes in each direction. The lanes are only about nine feet in width. Shoulders are either very narrow, or non-existant. Sidewalks along Memorial Drive were marked as "bicycle routes" in the early 70's, as a nod to the ecology movement, and the 70's bike boom. (observe the rusted, never-used bike racks here and there.) Over the years, those sidewalk/bike routes have fallen into dis-repair, with enormous potholes, pockmarks, and severe tree root damage. In some areas, the sidewalk/bike routes have simply caved-in altogether, with repairs taking months to even get scheduled. Memorial Drive is not a divided express highway. Bicycling on this road is legal, under state law. But, the Massachusetts state police will pull over and ticket cyclists they see riding on Memorial Drive, as well as several other similar state roads. This is very common during rush hour. There have been a few arrests.

Here is a informative link (http://crankmail.com/fredoswald/Rt2Road.html#Rowinsky) to part of the lab reform website regarding this.

Here is a quote from the article
"State Police Lieutenant Robert Ryan said patronizingly: "What we're saying is, `You have a legal right, but do you have a moral right?'"

I just think the similarities between these cases, with respect to the attitude of the law enforcement personnel, is striking.

HelmetHead, that cycling club needs to talk to a lawyer. Something smells bad. It doesn't seem to me that this cycling group was creating any kind of problem.

Off topic question: Is Mulholland Highway the same as Mulholland Drive? I have not been to L.A. for more than twenty years.

To Helmet Head.

Here's how attempts to increase safety on PCH in the Malibu area have played out. Must have bike lanes to "keep cyclists away from 50mph traffic" In fact the whole debate about the deaths of two cyclists forced out of the shoulder (not a bike lane) by construction has been about improving safety by removing the obstructions to the shoulder so cyclists would not have to mix with traffic.
Cops were also going on a ticket writting spree on side by side cyclists.

See:http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2005/11/03/news/news2.txt

Not any discussion about the cyclist inherent right to the road. :mad:

Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.

Horsepucky...every vehicle operating on the roadways has an obligation to yield to faster traffic if safe to do so. You failed to mention the traffic conditions in your little story. It seems you only presented the part of the story that would elicit your desired emotional response. Care to paint the rest of the picture for us?

Horsepucky...every vehicle operating on the roadways has an obligation to yield to faster traffic if safe to do so. You failed to mention the traffic conditions in your little story. It seems you only presented the part of the story that would elicit your desired emotional response. Care to paint the rest of the picture for us?

The key to your statment is "when safe to do so". Who gets to decide when it is safe to allow following traffic to pass. The cyclist gets to decide. And in the meantime, the faster traffic has to wait until it is safe to pass.

- show me the pictures of this incident or another web site detailing the incident...

- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...

- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?

- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?

- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...

Ohio maybe, but not Calif....

:-)

I don't have any problems with the cops in Ohio...at least while on my bicycle. ;)

My understanding is that they've been using the "we are just trying to keep you safe" red herring argument since the first time they tried to get us out of their way.

The embarrassingly tragic thing is how many cyclists, and even cycling advocates, buy that red herring argument hook, line and sinker (e.g., we need bike lanes to make cycling safer!).

You gotta look past the black helocopters and into reality. The statement "we are just trying to keep you safe" isn't some conspiracy against cyclists, it's an admission that LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN'T KEEP THE ROADWAYS SAFE. That is the root issue, the roadways are getting more dangerous for everyone and correcting the situation is beyond the control of law enforcement and government, which if you think about it, makes sense because laws designed for traffic safety do not enjoy widespread public support. Unpopular laws are unenforceable by less than draconian measures.

I know what you are thinking...yes, ask any American and they are all for traffic safety...but what they are for and what they practice on the street are two different things. The majority don't want to be bothered by things like speed limits, traffic control devices, cameras, safety belts, emission controls, sharing the road with slow moving vehicles, etc.

The key to your statment is "when safe to do so". Who gets to decide when it is safe to allow following traffic to pass. The cyclist gets to decide. And in the meantime, the faster traffic has to wait until it is safe to pass.

Agreed, but in this little story, the rider not only didn't comply when commanded to pull over, he merged left to pass another cyclist. Like I said earlier, I don't think we are getting the full story here, we're getting the parts that will get an emotional rise out of us. I want to see the whole picture before I jump on this troop train.

Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.

Horsepucky...
Horsepucky? What do you disagree with here?



every vehicle operating on the roadways has an obligation to yield to faster traffic if safe to do so.
Actually, vehicles have no obligations whatsoever. But of course all vehicle operators, including cyclists, have the obligation to yield to faster traffic, when it is safe and reasonable to do so. That's very different from having a general obligation to stay out of the way of cars, which is what most cyclists seem to believe, judging by the way they ride.



You failed to mention the traffic conditions in your little story. It seems you only presented the part of the story that would elicit your desired emotional response. Care to paint the rest of the picture for us?
I presented everything I had (the account of the incident was forwarded to me, along with comments about the account - I posted the entire account). I also provided a link to the LA Coalition list where you could find much more than I've seen about it. See post #30 in this thread.

You gotta look past the black helocopters and into reality. The statement "we are just trying to keep you safe" isn't some conspiracy against cyclists, it's an admission that LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN'T KEEP THE ROADWAYS SAFE. That is the root issue, the roadways are getting more dangerous for everyone and correcting the situation is beyond the control of law enforcement and government, which if you think about it, makes sense because laws designed for traffic safety do not enjoy widespread public support. Unpopular laws are unenforceable by less than draconian measures.

I know what you are thinking...yes, ask any American and they are all for traffic safety...but what they are for and what they practice on the street are two different things. The majority don't want to be bothered by things like speed limits, traffic control devices, cameras, safety belts, emission controls, sharing the road with slow moving vehicles, etc.
Nice theory. The problem with it is that they've been using the "we are just trying to keep you safe" argument since the early 70s, coincident with the bike boom. According to those who were involved with cycling advocacy in CA during those days, it was pretty obvious that the main concern was that the bike boom would put a lot of cyclists in the way of motorists, and they wanted to get them out of the way.

Agreed, but in this little story, the rider not only didn't comply when commanded to pull over, he merged left to pass another cyclist. Like I said earlier, I don't think we are getting the full story here, we're getting the parts that will get an emotional rise out of us. I want to see the whole picture before I jump on this troop train.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume the guy did merge left and not immediately slow down when the cop told them to pull over. Okay, that's wrong. But can we also assume that the cop slammed on his brakes in front of them? If he did that, what do you think of that?

More importantly, in the discussion about why they were pulled over in the first place, with regard to what 21202 says, if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?

...if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?

I don't know about others, but yes, this hits the nail on the head with me... and just adds more ammunition to my long held thoughts that too many motorists out there (and in this case, police too... ) do not know and understand the rights of cyclists according to the law.

The cop is full of sh*t. He's not interpreting the "spirit of the law", he's trying to enforce his own personal opinion.

In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?

I wonder if he thinks that cars should pull off to make way for semis? Semis for heavy haulers?

The cop is full of sh*t. He's not interpreting the "spirit of the law", he's trying to enforce his own personal opinion.

In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?

I wonder if he thinks that cars should pull off to make way for semis? Semis for heavy haulers?

Good point... last time I checked, JUDGES were the ones tasked with "interpreting the laws."

The cop is full of sh*t. He's not interpreting the "spirit of the law", he's trying to enforce his own personal opinion.

In general you would think that the "spirit of the law" would have at least SOME resemblance to the "letter of the law" - so why does this guy claim that the two are complete opposites?

Unfortunately, they are not complete opposites. After all, if you culled out all the exceptions, 21202 would simply say:

Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Unfortunately, this is all most people know about it.

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

Really, the officer is right about the spirit of the law, for the above version was the original intent. The only reason all the exceptions were added is because John Forester argued that the law would be revoked when challenged in court because it would violate cyclists rights, and he started citing various examples. For each example, they added an exception... the rest is history.

Good point... last time I checked, JUDGES were the ones tasked with "interpreting the laws."
Judges are the ones who interpret the CONSTITUTION in order to determine whether a given law is constitutional, and even then only when such a question is brought before them.

But everyone interprets laws. We must, in order to understand them. How do you obey and enforce laws that you have not even interpreted?

Unfortunately, they are not complete opposites. After all, if you culled out all the exceptions, 21202 would simply say:

Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

Unfortunately, this is all most people know about it.



Keep in mind that the "roadway" is the traveled portion of the road-- i.e., to the left of the white stripe. So this doesn't mean you have to ride on the shoulder, it means you have to ride in the rightmost part of the right lane -- as far right as "practicable."

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the guy did merge left and not immediately slow down when the cop told them to pull over. Okay, that's wrong. But can we also assume that the cop slammed on his brakes in front of them? If he did that, what do you think of that?

More importantly, in the discussion about why they were pulled over in the first place, with regard to what 21202 says, if the officer really said, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", do you find that outrageous, or not?

Wow, I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I don't find that outrageous at all. I weigh 180lbs and a car is a minimum of 20 times that much, maybe 30x or 40x. They are almost always travelling faster than I am unless I have a good run going down Skyline or 84, and even then if a car is coming up on me I will move over. I PREFER to stay out of the way of cars, and do everything I can to do so. When I need to take the lane for safety or to change lanes, I clearly signal my intent and appreciate it when they yield to me.

I guess I am suprised at some of the attitudes I see expressed here on this forum, which seem so antagonistic toward drivers in cars. So much emphasis on demanding your "rights" as a vehicle, then admitting you purposely drive slow to hold up "cagers" when you yourself are in your car, and so on. It all sounds like a big inferiority complex to me and it ends up creating more animosity and resentment toward all cyclists. Whatever happened to building common courtesy and respect? It would be nice if our society weren't so car-centric, drivers were more aware, and the roads weren't so crowded, but sadly that's not the reality we have to deal with. And as always, the rules tend to favor the majority.

And as far as the guy who decided to exercise his rights and ignore a request from a CHP officer when asked to move over - he deliberately ignored the cop and moved further INTO the lane in front of him to PASS another cyclist. What was he thinking? And then he wanted to argue CVC with him? No wonder the cop was pissed. I can't believe there is even a discussion over this.