Meaning of dashed bike lane stripe

[Helmet Head]

I'm curious as to what dashed bike lane stripes (as opposed to solid) means in various areas.

[Hawkear]

I voted the third, but dashed bike lanes obviously mean nothing according to local law enforcement (and we know they are all experts on the law!).

[Bekologist]

The example below means, to bikes: "Bikes move left to new lane; caution, cars may cross."

And to cars: "Caution; bike lane crossing, bikes repositioning for intersection. Cars continuing straight, move left."

[mac]

I don't know and voted for that. My guess is that it means bikes & cars can both cross over? I don't pay too much attention to bike lanes anyways here in L.A. A lot are terrible.

[noisebeam]

Bikes are always allowed to cross over BL stripe, dashed or not.

The dashed gives permission for motorist to merge into/across BL. Merge means yielding right of way to any vehicle already in BL.

Al

[noisebeam]

The example below means, to bikes: "Bikes move left to new lane; caution, cars may cross."

And to cars: "Caution; bike lane crossing, bikes repositioning for intersection. Cars continuing straight, move left."
See my response to this poor design in:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2092065&postcount=1521

If a RTOL breaks away the cyclist should merge before it does, not during which is how right hooks happen.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Bikes are always allowed to cross over BL stripe, dashed or not.

The dashed gives permission for motorist to merge into/across BL. Merge means yielding right of way to any vehicle already in BL.

Al

Perfectly said. This, I believe, is how the public interprets the dashed strip as well. This is also the interpretation given to solid lines separating other special use lanes (such as HOV or bus lanes).

[Brian Ratliff]

See my response to this poor design in:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2092065&postcount=1521

If a RTOL breaks away the cyclist should merge before it does, not during which is how right hooks happen.

Al

I would agree that this design is subpar. It usually occurs as an add-on to roads which did not used to have the right turn only lane. If you look in the background, you can see that this road used to be stripped as a two lane with a right+straight turn lane where the right turn only lane is now. Across the intersection, there is a wide section of road where the single lane + bike lane transitions back into a two lanes + bike lane configuration. So while this configuration is subpar, I would argue that it is better than having a bike lane to the right of a right+straight through lane.

One could argue that it is better for the bike lane to simply disappear, however, if the bike lane disappeared without a sign giving instructions on how cyclists are to negotiate the intersection, most cyclists (the ones who primarily benefit from bike lanes) would simply cross the intersection traveling to the right of the right turn only lane. So while the dashed lines might transition a bit too sharply, they do a good job of guiding the cyclist to the correct lane position and guiding the cars to merge into the bike lane. An experienced cyclist who transitions earlier will not be affected, and the less experienced cyclist will be guided across the right turn only lane in an expedient and official manner; any driver has no excuse to be surprised.

The way right turn only lanes work on new road construction here, is that the bike lane stays on a straight path and the the right turn only lane breaks out and becomes a completely separate lane to the right of the bike lane. This forces the driver to merge purposefully into the bike lane, instead of simply merging by default, as the design above is doing. This method of negotiating right turning cars with straight going cyclists is the preferred method in the Portland area, to judge from new road construction projects.

[noisebeam]

I would agree that this design is subpar. It usually occurs as an add-on to roads which did not used to have the right turn only lane. If you look in the background, you can see that this road used to be stripped as a two lane with a right+straight turn lane where the right turn only lane is now. Across the intersection, there is a wide section of road where the single lane + bike lane transitions back into a two lanes + bike lane configuration. So while this configuration is subpar, I would argue that it is better than having a bike lane to the right of a right+straight through lane.

One could argue that it is better for the bike lane to simply disappear, however, if the bike lane disappeared without a sign giving instructions on how cyclists are to negotiate the intersection, most cyclists (the ones who primarily benefit from bike lanes) would simply cross the intersection traveling to the right of the right turn only lane. So while the dashed lines might transition a bit too sharply, they do a good job of guiding the cyclist to the correct lane position and guiding the cars to merge into the bike lane. An experienced cyclist who transitions earlier will not be affected, and the less experienced cyclist will be guided across the right turn only lane in an expedient and official manner; any driver has no excuse to be surprised.

The way right turn only lanes work on new road construction here, is that the bike lane stays on a straight path and the the right turn only lane breaks out and becomes a completely separate lane to the right of the bike lane. This forces the driver to merge purposefully into the bike lane, instead of simply merging by default, as the design above is doing. This method of negotiating right turning cars with straight going cyclists is the preferred method in the Portland area, to judge from new road construction projects.
I agree. I had this reaction as it was posted in another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2090197&postcount=27) as an example of a 'good design'. I don't think BL proponents should be showing this as a good example. If it was presented as a 'workable design' I wouldn't have had as strong a reaction.

Al

[Paul L.]

In many places the dotted lines are accompanied by signs saying cars yield to bikes. So that would be my vote.

[patc]

Perfectly said. This, I believe, is how the public interprets the dashed strip as well. This is also the interpretation given to solid lines separating other special use lanes (such as HOV or bus lanes).

Special use lanes are special use lanes... only bike-lane haters think special rules apply only to bike lanes.

[Brian Ratliff]

Special use lanes are special use lanes... only bike-lane haters think special rules apply only to bike lanes.

Good point.

[Treespeed]

The example below means, to bikes: "Bikes move left to new lane; caution, cars may cross."

And to cars: "Caution; bike lane crossing, bikes repositioning for intersection. Cars continuing straight, move left."

+1

[TRaffic Jammer]

I know about the DO NOT cross solid line but at the top of my street where there is oodles of parking it came to my attention last night that the line is completely solid. So under that definition there should be no cars parker there at all as they would have to cross the line to park. Now on the same stretch of road/path...when you get to an intersection the line is dashed, so maybe.... cars can cross here in they're normal driving pattern vis-a-vis turning the corner. BUT you can cross that line to park? Seems odd.

[noisebeam]

Take a look at p.23 in this .pdf from Pima County, AZ (Tuscon):
http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/tpcbac/sharetheroad.pdf

It doesn't address the stripe vs. not issue, but it does say cars should not merge into BL for right turns, which I think is wrong recommendation. It is much safer if cars merge (yielding ROW) into BL before turn, whether the last 20ft of lane stripe is dashed or not.

Of course the graphic shown is correct, drivers should not right hook (i.e. yeild ROW) but the best way to right turn as motor vehicle is to merge into BL well before turn. On a heavily cycled route this may mean safely merging in front of a cyclist and temporarily slowing them down (or giving cyclist option to pass on left)

Al

[Bekologist]

I agree. I had this reaction as it was posted in another thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2090197&postcount=27) as an example of a 'good design'. I don't think BL proponents should be showing this as a good example. If it was presented as a 'workable design' I wouldn't have had as strong a reaction.

Al

why the kneejerk response Al? You had to transpose your criticism of it to this thread? I didn't place any quality assessment of it here.

However, 'workable' 'good' 'effective' all apply in my mind, this was a rework of existing pavement. I'm just one guy, caveman biker dude. I'm no expert, but I wonder what exactly you 'experts' consider 'good' bike accomodations at intersections? nothing???

It's a picture i took yesterday, fer cristsakes, what do you want, pulitzer prize winning bike lane pictures?

[noisebeam]

why the kneejerk response Al? You had to transpose your criticism of it to this thread?

It was a strong response, not kneejerk. As courtesy, I very careully tried to direct discussion to the BL thread. Did you not notice the links I provided lead/directed to my critism in the BL thread where I hoped discussion would continue?

Why the strong response? Because while I am in general against BL, I am in favor of carefully planned and implemented bike facilities. This means that a specific design in put into place for a specific location, instead of applying standards that don't always fit. I think showing BL designs as you photographed hurts BL advocacy by lowering the expectations of specific and good design, instead of helping it.
Al

[JRA]

Bikes are always allowed to cross over BL stripe, dashed or not.
Yea, exactly.


The dashed gives permission for motorist to merge into/across BL. Merge means yielding right of way to any vehicle already in BL.
In Missouri, cars not only have permission but are encouraged to merge into the BL before making a turn, whether the stripe is solid or dashed.

Bikes can leave a BL whether the line is solid or dashed and cars can enter a BL whether the line solid or dashed, so, solid or dashed, it doesn't matter.

They can make the line orange and purple for all I care. It's just some paint on the pavement. It's not like it's a wall or anything.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp

[Helmet Head]

Bikes are always allowed to cross over BL stripe, dashed or not.
Not in CA and many other states. Striped or not, you have to have a good reason to leave the bike lane:


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.


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21208.htm

[Helmet Head]

Take a look at p.23 in this .pdf from Pima County, AZ (Tuscon):
http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/tpcbac/sharetheroad.pdf

It doesn't address the stripe vs. not issue, but it does say cars should not merge into BL for right turns, which I think is wrong recommendation.
It's not a recommendation, it's a statement of the law. The law in AZ, at least. (I believe OR and MA law is similar, other states too). In AZ, motorists are prohibited from merging into bike lanes when turning right. In CA, they are required to merge into bike lanes when turning right. :rolleyes:


28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage

A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations:

1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.

4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

B. Persons riding bicycles on a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

C. A path or lane that is designated as a bicycle path or lane by state or local authorities is for the exclusive use of bicycles even though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection D or are otherwise permitted by state or local authorities.

D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway.

E. Subsection D does not prohibit the use of the path or lane by the appropriate local authority.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00815.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS



21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm).

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21717.htm

[TRaffic Jammer]

so that's not confusing at all to travelers wether in cars or touring on bikes.... bloody hell

[Ignatz]

I'm in the California Bay Area and I've always considered the dashed portion of the bike lane stripe to be basically meaningless. Auto drivers are allowed to enter the bike lane to make a right turn within two hundred feet of the corner regardless of the type of striping. I couldn't find it in the regulations themselves but the following quote is from the drivers handbook on the CA DMV website;

"BICYCLE LANES
A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either side of the street, four or more feet from the
curb. The white line will usually be broken near the corner and the words “BIKE LANE” will be
painted in the lane. Do not drive in a bike lane unless you are making a right turn and are within
200 feet of the corner or other driveway entrance."

My guess is that by changing the line to a dashed one as the bike lane nears a corner the intent is to tell cyclists to be aware that cars may be entering the bike lane to make the right turn and to let auto drivers know that they can enter the bike lane.

[genec]

The dashing signifies a merge area... that motorists should merge into the lane to make their turn and cyclists should merge out of the lane unless also turning.

This by the way is vastly different from "allowed to enter or allowed to leave," as motorists may enter BL in other areas too, such as to cross into a driveway and cyclists always my leave a BL

[noisebeam]

It's not a recommendation, it's a statement of the law. The law in AZ, at least. .... In AZ, motorists are prohibited from merging into bike lanes when turning right.
28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage
[cut]
D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway.[/b]

(italics are Al's)

So there is a grey area between crossing vs. merging it seems. Does crossing mean ones car needs to be perpendicular? Does it mean that one should not make forward motion when crossing the line? What about 90% forward motion and 10% crossing motion?

Also where newer BL striping is applied the last 20ft of the stripe before a side street right turn is often dashed - that seems to give the message to drivers to merge into the lane before turning. (what really happens is motorist clip the corner of the dashed line.) But the dashing is not always done for sidestreets even with new repainting one side street will get the 20ft of dash, the next one which may be a slighlty smaller side street gets none. Does this mean that motorist should merge into BL where dashed, but make a sharp right hook where there is no dash?

Al

[sbhikes]

It means lane ends. Merge with caution. And it means that to both cars and cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

Auto drivers are allowed to enter the bike lane to make a right turn within two hundred feet of the corner
It is true that in CA motorists are allowed to enter the BL to make a right turn as early as 200 feet prior to the turn. But by the time they get to the turn, they are required to have merged into it (at some point in that 200 feet).


The dashing signifies a merge area... that motorists should merge into the lane to make their turn and cyclists should merge out of the lane unless also turning.

This by the way is vastly different from "allowed to enter or allowed to leave," as motorists may enter BL in other areas too, such as to cross into a driveway and cyclists always my leave a BL
Agreed. The dashed or solid striping is advisory, at best. For example, rarely is the stripe dashed for the entire 200 feet that motorists are allowed to merge into the BL prior to a turn.


So there is a grey area between crossing vs. merging it seems.
It's pretty clear that the intent of the AZ law is to allow motorists to cross a bike lane, to, for example, get into a driveway. But that's very different from the CA language, "the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn".


Does crossing mean ones car needs to be perpendicular? Does it mean that one should not make forward motion when crossing the line? What about 90% forward motion and 10% crossing motion?
All laws are based on the implicit premise, "within reason". Sure, there might be a small gray area, but in CA it's clearly legal to drive into and stay in a bike lane for the entire 200 feet prior to an intersection where the driver is turning right, and that's clearly not legal in AZ. Since you can make the turn without ever entering the bike lane (by staying wide), it's not clear that it's ever legal to enter the bike lane at all when turning right at an intersection where the bike lane ends at the intersection (as opposed to turning right into a driveway that requires crossing the bike lane, since it goes across the driveway entrance).

[Helmet Head]

It means lane ends. Merge with caution. And it means that to both cars and cyclists.
I'm beginning to think the only reasonable conclusion is that when a BL stripe goes from solid to stripe it seemly means, "stripe is ending shortly (whatever that means)".

[Treespeed]

I'm beginning to think the only reasonable conclusion is that when a BL stripe goes from solid to stripe it seemly means, "stripe is ending shortly (whatever that means)".

Maybe you should tell us what that means, you know you're dying to. :D

[genec]

In many places the dotted lines are accompanied by signs saying cars yield to bikes. So that would be my vote.

I would love to see these signs... in my area the BL are marked by tiny signs that are barely visible to speeding motorists... and often the stripe is nearly faded away and if there ever was a BL "stencil" it has been covered by the roadway patches to fill in the cable TV trench put in many years ago. There is very little communication here to motorists about BL or cyclists rights... I know of 6 Share the Road signs on a 65MPH road, and that is about it.

I think the signage could be increased dramatically... to at least match the number of "truck merge" signs.

[noisebeam]

I would love to see these signs...
These signs (medium sized rectangular with black text on white background) are very common in the newer parts of the Valley (metro-phx) - mosty I see them in Chandler and some in Tempe (Tempe has less new road building). They are mostly (if not only) put in place where there is a RTOL with the BL remaining to its left. They do not occur if a right turn with no RTOL requires crossing a BL.

1/27 edit addtion:
The sign reads:

BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE
<-----
YIELD TO BIKES

Note that cyclists are not merging with traffic as is discussed below. Instead drivers should yield before crossing dashed bike lane.

Al

[noisebeam]

Here is an example video of a BL where the stripe is unbroken where is crosses driveways, but ends with a 20ft dash before crossing a side street.

Are motorist expected to turn differently into each?

Jan 12, 2006 Bike Lane (http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/060112-0717blleft.avi) (3.2MB, right click, save target as... then open and view from local)

Does anyone know a codec that will allow files to be viewed on Mac OS? PM me if you do.

Al

[Helmet Head]

I would love to see these signs... in my area the BL are marked by tiny signs that are barely visible to speeding motorists... and often the stripe is nearly faded away and if there ever was a BL "stencil" it has been covered by the roadway patches to fill in the cable TV trench put in many years ago. There is very little communication here to motorists about BL or cyclists rights... I know of 6 Share the Road signs on a 65MPH road, and that is about it.

I think the signage could be increased dramatically... to at least match the number of "truck merge" signs.
Careful what you wish for.

The greater presence achieved by bike lanes, the greater the expectation that that is where, and only where, cyclists belong.

It would be interesting to compare cultural acceptance of cycling outside of bike lanes in San Diego, Santa Barbara, Portland and Davis. I bet it's significantly better accepted in San Diego. In fact, when I visited Santa Barbara a few months ago that was the impression I got - a greater expectation for cyclists to remain out of the way.

[genec]

Careful what you wish for.

The greater presence achieved by bike lanes, the greater the expectation that that is where, and only where, cyclists belong.

It would be interesting to compare cultural acceptance of cycling outside of bike lanes in San Diego, Santa Barbara, Portland and Davis. I bet it's significantly better accepted in San Diego. In fact, when I visited Santa Barbara a few months ago that was the impression I got - a greater expectation for cyclists to remain out of the way.


Frankly I have no problem being "out of the way;" it is why I ride to the right most of the time anyway.

But the next part of that whole equation is to train the motorists that we also have rights to leave the BL... which will only happen when there are enough cyclists riding for us to not be "unusual," and when motorists know the laws that we ride under... which grant us the right to leave the lane, when we ensure that the way is clear, AND signal.

[Treespeed]

Careful what you wish for.

The greater presence achieved by bike lanes, the greater the expectation that that is where, and only where, cyclists belong.

It would be interesting to compare cultural acceptance of cycling outside of bike lanes in San Diego, Santa Barbara, Portland and Davis. I bet it's significantly better accepted in San Diego. In fact, when I visited Santa Barbara a few months ago that was the impression I got - a greater expectation for cyclists to remain out of the way.

HH- I don't see that one has to flow from the other, a bit of a poor argument really. Gene was saying where there are bike lanes it would be helpful to have signs alerting motorist to merging cyclists. If there are bike lanes, then folks are going to use them, why not alert drivers to merging traffic of any kind. Your argument is a condemnation of bike lanes in general and not a good argument against signage.

I know you feel like any money spent on facilities, even signage is a waste, but I still don't see the problem with educating motorists when they are a captive if somewhat innattentive audience. But motorists need to be alerted that cyclists are going to be merging if the bike lane is going to end for whatever reason and whether or not you think they should be there in the first place.

[Helmet Head]

A merging cyclist alerts motorists to merging cyclists infinitely more effectively than does a sign which falsely announces merging cyclists most of the time (since most of the time, there are no merging cyclists).

On a rural highway where most of the traffic is non-local, a "falling rocks" or "deer xing" sign might have some effect. Maybe. But on the locals, who go by those same signs every day, over and over, without incident? No way. No effect. And that's about as effective as a "merging cyclists" sign is.

Do you have any "bump" signs around your place? There again, the sign is effective only for non-locals. You know what alerts the locals to the bump? That's right, the bump! If you remove the sign do you think the locals will go flying across that bump? If you fix the bump and remove the sign, the locals are going to continue slowing down there for weeks before they get used.

Humans are habitual. A sign that says "merging cyclists" when most of the time there are no "merging cyclists" is ineffective.

Signs Shmigns. Nothing alerts a motorist to a merging cyclist like a merging cyclist.

[Treespeed]

Signs Shmigns. Nothing alerts a motorist to a merging cyclist like a merging cyclist.

Well what about the, "Cyclist May Use Full Lane" signs so that motorists at least have some understanding of why I'm sitting in the middle of the lane. Actually I'm thinking of just getting a bunch of T-shirts made up with this logo.

[Helmet Head]

I like the "Cyclist may use full lane" sign, though it may have the effect of implying that that is only true where the sign is posted.

how about,



REMEMBER: CYCLISTS MAY USE FULL LANE


(except when traveling slower than the speed of traffic and
none of the exceptions in CVC 21202 apply - which is like never)

[genec]

I like the "Cyclist may use full lane" sign, though it may have the effect of implying that that is only true where the sign is posted.

how about,



REMEMBER: CYCLISTS MAY USE FULL LANE


(except when traveling slower than the speed of traffic and
none of the exceptions in CVC 21202 apply - which is like never)





Leave out the fine print, just put in the CVC number and make the motorists get smart on the laws too... by looking it up.

[Bekologist]

On an advisory sign, the phrase "remember" is duplicitious, rendered moot.

[Treespeed]

Though I do like the, "which is like never." addition regarding exceptions.

[el twe]

And it's fun to slalom in between the dashes.

[sbhikes]

Serge, before you say how it is in Santa Barbara you have to ride here. You only visited here and all your observations of how it is were made from the comfortable armchair of your car.

[Bruce Rosar]

... "Cyclist may use full lane" sign ... it may have the effect of implying that that is only true where the sign is posted ... CVC 21202 ...That's not the only problem with such signage. In another forum, Brian DeSousa wrote on 24 Jan 2006:
For the San Francisco "Bikes Allowed Use of Full Lane" sign, I think that the 21202 reference is incorrect. 21202(a) requires cyclists to share lanes with faster traffic, and 21202(a)(3) exempts cyclists from this requirement when a lane is too narrow to safely share. So in the case of a multilane road with a narrow outside lane, 21202 isn't really enabling anything; it's just simply not applicable.

Dan Gutierrez followed up with:
CVC 21202 is redundant to CVC 21654 for two lane roads ... and outright hostile to cyclists on multi-lane roads because, unlike CVC 21654 which requires use of the rightmost lane (speed positioning), CVC 21202 requires that cyclists share the outside lane, thus giving cyclists lesser rights to lane space than motorists.

[Bekologist]

why the big type, Bruce? And what does those quotes have to do with anything, for all practical purposes?

Did you mean to say, in your opinion, in your agenda on design, the wording "cyclists may use full lane" doesn't apply in some places, so signs with this wording shouldn't be put up anywhere?

[genec]

CVC 21654 is interesting on two counts:

First the code:
21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Now the question... what is the normal speed of traffic? Is it the speed that other traffic is driving or the speed limit?

Second... regarding this provision... the references are toward "vehicles," and California does not recognize bicycles as vehicles, but as "human powered devices."

Both sections 231 and 39000. "Bicycle," for the purposes of this division, means any device upon which a person may ride, which is propelled by human power through a system of belts, chains, or gears having either two or three wheels (one of which is at least 20 inches in diameter) or having a frame size of at least 14 inches, or having four or more wheels.

And vehice is defined as thus:

Vehicle

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Therefore 21654 does not apply to bicycles.

[noisebeam]

CYCLISTS MAY USE FULL LANE
HERE AND MOST EVERYWHERE



;)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

And it's fun to slalom in between the dashes.

I thought the fun comes in counting how many angels can dance on the dashes, or perhaps counting how many interpretations of the LAW can be made by cycling angels?

[chipcom]

I thought the fun comes in counting how many angels can dance on the dashes, or perhaps counting how many interpretations of the LAW can be made by cycling angels?
http://www.grahameweinbren.net/March/gifs/AngelBycicle3.jpg
Serge, commuting to his pulpit while practicing DLP and long, steely-eyed backwards stares.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

http://www.grahameweinbren.net/March/gifs/AngelBycicle3.jpg
Serge, commuting to his pulpit.
Don't you mean Serge theorizing about and visions of commuting derived while reading/writing a book, driving his car, or staring at the rear wheel of his weekend peloton partners?

BTW, good picture and apropos.

[Bekologist]

CVC 21654 is interesting on two counts:

First the code:

(deleted)

Therefore 21654 does not apply to bicycles.

So, does that mean you won't ride your bike to the right or use a bike lane, when slower than traffic,

Because the law loopholes bikes out the traffic code in your area, Gene?


Should a bike then NOT ride as far right as practicable, or is riding to the right still a good idea? How about using a well designed bike lane, or having to ride thru an intersection with dashed bike lane stripes, similar to the one in the pictures I posted?