Advocacy & Safety - Cycling safety jeopardized by local law enforcement?

Do police in your area find it necessary to regularly travel at an unsafe speed & distance from you?

It appears to be the culture here.:mad:

The majority of my cycling miles are on four- to six-lane roads with posted speed limits of 50 & 55mph. Fortunately, the bike lanes are decent overall, the traffic is often light, and courteous drivers will usually move to an inner lane for safer passing.

Except for police cars. I seldom ever see them move to an inner lane. Of course that wouldn't bother me if they could just pass safely. Rather than serving as an example for responsible, safe driving, they tend to pass at relatively high speeds at an uncomfortably close distance (less than 3'...often much less).

And this happens frequently. Today was more of the same, except it occured on a long block where the bike lane is narrow and traffic is more concentrated. Almost all traffic was traveling in the two inner lanes when a police car takes advantage of the open right lane and busts right through. It happened so fast and so close that I had to work to maintain my line. As the officer passed, I watched as his right wheels tracked directly on the white line for as far as I could see. And, no, there wasn't an emergency; s/he waited at the next red light.

Is this really necessary on their part? Are they exempt from safely sharing the road all users? Am I wrong to have concerns about their driving abilities/judgment (based on the cyclists fatalities caused by law enforcement)?

cops are just a more privileged class of JAMs

Don't suppose you've triedringing up the staion to express your concern?

How narrow is the bike lane? Any pictures? Maybe a google maps street view? There's a bike lane in my town that narrows down to 6" to the left of the gutter pan at one point. I usually move out of and take the lane there. Since the bike lane doesn't conform with the California MUTCD it's in violation of the California streets & highways code and legally is not a bike lane. You may want to become a "would be traffic law scholar" as some around here might say and look up your local laws. Here's the streets & highway codes I'm thinking of (for california...found at leginfo.ca.gov)

890.6. The department, in cooperation with county and city
governments, shall establish minimum safety design criteria for the
planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle
travel is permitted. The criteria shall include, but not be limited
to, the design speed of the facility, minimum widths and clearances,
grade, radius of curvature, pavement surface, actuation of automatic
traffic control devices, drainage, and general safety. The criteria
shall be updated biennially, or more often, as needed.

890.8. The department shall establish uniform specifications and
symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices to designate
bikeways, regulate traffic, improve safety and convenience for
bicyclists, and alert pedestrians and motorists of the presence of
bicyclists on bikeways and on roadways where bicycle travel is
permitted.

891. All city, county, regional, and other local agencies
responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or roadways
where bicycle travel is permitted shall utilize all minimum safety
design criteria and uniform specifications and symbols for signs,.
markers, and traffic control devices established pursuant to Sections
890.6 and 890.8.

I'm assuming the "criteria" mentioned are those in the California MUTCD, which states that a bike lane stripe should be a minimum of 3 feet from the gutter pan, or 4 feet from the curb if the gutter pan is more than 1 foot wide. see here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/pdf/camutcd/CAMUTCD-Part9.pdf (caution: this is a 3+mb PDF file)

Do police in your area find it necessary to regularly travel at an unsafe speed & distance from you?

Are you saying that you are cycling in a marked bike lane and expect motorists to move left out of the adjacent traffic lane into an inner lane in order to give you additional space? If so, I think you expect more than you are entitled, and more than you would see in many places. As long as they aren't driving in the bike lane I don't see where you have a problem or legitimate beef.

Well the OP said the officer was driving ON the bike lane line while passing. Even in a car if somebody's driving ON the dotted white line while passing me in the lane next to me I'd be concerned... I think the OP may also be dealing with a substandard width bike lane, forcing cyclists to either travel on or near the bike lane line or in the gutter like a few of the poorly implemented/substandard width bike lanes I've seen here.

Edited to add:

Maybe the OP just wants the motorists that insist on staying in the lane directly to the left of the bike lane to bias left in their lane to provide adequate clearance, instead of biasing right/driving right on the bike lane line while they pass. This would just be common courtesy if the bike lane is indeed of substandard width, and failure to maintain adequate passing distance (even when multiple lanes are present) would still be in violation of the vehicle code.

Well the OP said the officer was driving ON the bike lane line while passing. Even in a car if somebody's driving ON the dotted white line while passing me in the lane next to me I'd be concerned... I think the OP may also be dealing with a substandard width bike lane, forcing cyclists to either travel on or near the bike lane line or in the gutter like a few of the poorly implemented/substandard width bike lanes I've seen here.

Edited to add:

Maybe the OP just wants the motorists that insist on staying in the lane directly to the left of the bike lane to bias left in their lane to provide adequate clearance, instead of biasing right/driving right on the bike lane line while they pass. This would just be common courtesy if the bike lane is indeed of substandard width, and failure to maintain adequate passing distance (even when multiple lanes are present) would still be in violation of the vehicle code.

Maybe the bike lane is substandard width, maybe not; the OP never said. I have doubts about any legal requirement to maintain a minimum adequate passing distance as long as both vehicles are in separate distinctly marked lanes.

Common courtesy? Sure, give some extra room if its available and no other vehicle is in close proximity to the left, but that ain't the law and the OP won't get too far with reports to the police of a failure to be given an expected courtesy.

Are you saying that you are cycling in a marked bike lane and expect motorists to move left out of the adjacent traffic lane into an inner lane in order to give you additional space? If so, I think you expect more than you are entitled, and more than you would see in many places. As long as they aren't driving in the bike lane I don't see where you have a problem or legitimate beef.
While I appreciate your input, I think you may have misread my post. Nowhere did I state that I expect motorists to move out of the adjacent lane.

Of course that wouldn't bother me if they could just pass safely.
I do think passing safely is a legitimate concern and is fundamental to sharing the road. Am I wrong?

While I appreciate your input, I think you may have misread my post. Nowhere did I state that I expect motorists to move out of the adjacent lane.

I do think passing safely is a legitimate concern and is fundamental to sharing the road. Am I wrong?

You are in the bike lane, the police are in the next lane to your left but you claim they are not passing "safely"? I still don't get your problem/concern.

You are in the bike lane, the police are in the next lane to your left but you claim they are not passing "safely"? I still don't get your problem/concern.

Maybe you missed the part where he said it was a small bike lane, and the cop was riding the outside white line. I don't think this is passing safely. He could have centered himself in the lane, or hugged the inside dotted white line.

Desertdork, I'd suggest providing essential information to your chief of police. If he or she is unresponsive, go directly to your council. For many reasons, quality of driving is important to departments but very difficult to maintain.

How wide is the bike lane? How often have you observed police vehicles driving in lane or on the lane? In what locations? What are the car numbers? On what dates at which times?

I'm pretty fortunate that the cops seem to almost always get in the far left lane, on the four lane I ride most, It's the hockey/soccer moms with their cell phones and lipstick(in uber SUV's) that scare the crap out of me daily.

Here's the section where the most recent incident happened,
for those that wanted a visual...
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/Jefferson.jpg
The section of bike lane you see here measures 31" from the inside
edge of the white line to the edge of the gutter pan. Multiple
measurements I took along this stretch varied from 28" to 33". There
are various hazards throughout the lane that make hugging the inner
edge impossible or unsafe at the very least.

I don't know if this qualifies as "substandard" or "within guidelines."
Regardless, the bike lane doesn't seem very generous given the
relatively narrow width of the right lane in respect to the traffic speed.

This street functions as the boundary between two cities: one that
sees road maintenance/engineering as an unnecessary expense, and
one that is progressive. The other side of the street is better
maintained with less debris and fewer hazardous obstructions as well
as a more comfortable combined width of right/bike lanes.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/Jeffersonsb.jpg

So back to my original question: Am I being unreasonable when "public
safety officers" fail to maintain a safe distance when passing, or even
encroach their vehicle into your lane in the process? Is this something
you experience in your area?

Here's the section where the most recent incident happened,
for those that wanted a visual...
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/Jefferson.jpg
The section of bike lane you see here measures 31" from the inside
edge of the white line to the edge of the gutter pan. Multiple
measurements I took along this stretch varied from 28" to 33". There
are various hazards throughout the lane that make hugging the inner
edge impossible or unsafe at the very least.

I don't know if this qualifies as "substandard" or "within guidelines."
Regardless, the bike lane doesn't seem very generous given the
relatively narrow width of the right lane in respect to the traffic speed.

This street functions as the boundary between two cities: one that
sees road maintenance/engineering as an unnecessary expense, and
one that is progressive. The other side of the street is better
maintained with less debris and fewer hazardous obstructions as well
as a more comfortable combined width of right/bike lanes.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/Jeffersonsb.jpg

So back to my original question: Am I being unreasonable when "public
safety officers" fail to maintain a safe distance when passing, or even
encroach their vehicle into your lane in the process? Is this something
you experience in your area?

55MPH eh... and barely 4 feet wide including gutter pan...

65MPH on Freeways and a whole 8 feet of room there... must be some magic in those 10 feet eh?

Bear in mind that back when freeways were limited to 55MPH, that road you are talking about was probably a 40 or 45MPH road (if it existed).

Are you being unreasonable... no, but then I am a cyclist. Remember most drivers have no clue as to the legality of cyclists on the road... and some police flat out think we don't belong.

... and some police flat out think we don't belong.
That's the feeling I get.

those are substandard width and design bike lanes, it seems like they could easily widen the bike lane by 1.5' to 3' by making each of the three adjacent travel lanes 6" to 12" narrower, they look plenty wide to do this.

Is that really a bike lane (i.e. with bike lane signs) or is it really a shoulder?

^ That's an example of a bad bike lane.

Here's an example of a good one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/3015701752_c35e757ecc.jpg

Most of the people around here seem to take "bike lane" as "parking lane", probably because of the lack of markings.

Is that really a bike lane (i.e. with bike lane signs) or is it really a shoulder?
Good point! Thanks...

Posted signage along this block indicate it's a bike lane, but the size of the lane and the lack of painted markings (wouldn't fit, undoubtedly) give the appearance of a shoulder. The solid, white line becomes dotted before the "bike lane" disappears...er, merges into the adjacent traffic lane 200+ft before the next major intersection. Marked or not, the "engineers" must have intended its use as a bike lane; I dont recall shoulders marked as such on other roads I've traveled.

With all taken into consideration, I think your observation warrants a call to public works.

With all taken into consideration, I think your observation warrants a call to public works.

When you call them, ask them to look at something called the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). You can read about it here: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swless19.htm

For your road, the minimum recommended width would be 60".

The easiest way for public works to bring the lane into compliance would be to take down the bike lane signs, which would make it a shoulder. Odds are, it used to be a shoulder, and at some point it was dubbed a bike lane in a spate of "bike-friendly" activism. There are no standards for shoulders. From a theoretical standpoint, the difference would be that a shoulder is not part of the roadway and a bike lane is. If your local law requires you to right as far right as practicable on the roadway, you would be required to use a bike lane but not a shoulder.

From a practical perspective I don't see the signs making any difference. A better solution would be to ask them to make the bike lane wider the next time they stripe the road.

Where would you ride if the line wasn't there at all?

That is where you should ride your bike.

Everyone has the moral and legal duty to pass slower vehicles in a safe manner and with due care. (This is true even if the slower vehicle is not driving in the proper place.)

When you call them, ask them to look at something called the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). You can read about it here: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swless19.htm

For your road, the minimum recommended width would be 60".

The easiest way for public works to bring the lane into compliance would be to take down the bike lane signs, which would make it a shoulder. Odds are, it used to be a shoulder, and at some point it was dubbed a bike lane in a spate of "bike-friendly" activism. There are no standards for shoulders. From a theoretical standpoint, the difference would be that a shoulder is not part of the roadway and a bike lane is. If your local law requires you to right as far right as practicable on the roadway, you would be required to use a bike lane but not a shoulder.

From a practical perspective I don't see the signs making any difference. A better solution would be to ask them to make the bike lane wider the next time they stripe the road.

Yeah I was going from memory last night since my computer didn't want to download that huge PDF of the California MUTCD section 9, heh. In an area where parking is prohibited the bike lane must be at least 5' wide (including the gutter pan, apparently it doesn't matter how wide the gutter is). If there is no gutter then the bike lane can be 4' wide. Here's the page I was thinking of...

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa99/jeffb502/MUTCDPart99C-18.jpg

Note that California has its own "California MUTCD" which is basically the federal MUTCD with some things deleted/changed and with some things added in that don't appear in the federal MUTCD at all.

...As the officer passed, I watched as his right wheels tracked directly on the white line for as far as I could see. And, no, there wasn't an emergency; s/he waited at the next red light.

Is this really necessary on their part? Are they exempt from safely sharing the road all users? Am I wrong to have concerns about their driving abilities/judgment (based on the cyclists fatalities caused by law enforcement)?

No. You aren't wrong to expect other people to behave in a safe manner around you. It isn't self entitlement as others have claimed. No more so than if you're driving on the interstate to expect the other cars to not drift into your lane. It's self preservation.

Law enforcement is not exempt from following the rules of the road if not in an emergency situation. If I found myself in the situations you describe I would definitely contact the police agency and explain your concerns to them. The white line is to separate the lane. If someone is driving with a wheel on the line then several inches of the vehicle and the entire side mirror is OVER the line and intruding into your lane. This causes an immediate threat to your safety and is breaking the law.

It might not be a bad idea to contact the city/town officials concerning the substandard bike lanes and the resulting threats from using those lanes.

Good luck.

I appreciate all of you taking the time to reply.

JeffB502 & DCCommuter, thanks for the links. Reading up should provide more detailed and useful information than I obtained from scanning the CA Streets & Hwy Code in the past. I previously thought municipalities were given leeway as to how each interpreted what constitutes a bike lane. If there are universal standards & expectations, I want to understand them. I don't even what

After some self-educating, I'll make a point to document the various problem areas as I encounter them and present these issues to the respective departments.

As for the police issue, my original concern, I'll find a way to deal with that. Identifying a speeding car does present an issue, though. I don't necessarily want to make myself unpopular with the cops on my regular ride, but I do think someone in charge should be aware. At least it's not something that others here encounter.

I have doubts about any legal requirement to maintain a minimum adequate passing distance as long as both vehicles are in separate distinctly marked lanes.

Seriously? Safe passing distance is only a legal requirement under certain conditions? I think you should confirm that, because I thought otherwise.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/Jeffersonsb.jpg

So back to my original question: Am I being unreasonable when "public
safety officers" fail to maintain a safe distance when passing, or even
encroach their vehicle into your lane in the process? Is this something
you experience in your area?

That doesn't look like a bikelane to me. If it was, you should see something designating it as such within that stretch.

I'd probably ride on or about the white line there, preferring sitting a foot or so to the left of it. There's plenty of other lanes for other people to use to pass, I'd be encouraging them to use it. I've found even if they just do a partial lane change, they'll still pass you with plenty of room, but if they don't you've got a bit of leeway to the right.

If you really are concerned, it might be worth saying so at the local police station. That way, if you do start taking more of the lane and one of these cops has the audacity to pull you over for it, you'll at least have why you do it on the official record.

Seriously? Safe passing distance is only a legal requirement under certain conditions? I think you should confirm that, because I thought otherwise.

Some might define minimum safe passing distance as not touching, especially if both vehicles are in adjacent marked lanes. You know a different minimum legal distance for that scenario? The minimum legal distance is certainly not any distance less than that claimed by a motorist or cyclist as their personal zone of comfort.

Here's the California law.
21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and exceptions hereinafter stated.
There is no mention of lane lines being an excuse to pass somebody at an unsafe distance, but the California law is very vague. I guess the only way to know for sure if passing another vehicle on the white line is illegal would be to intentionally pass every police officer in the state in a 4 wheeled motor vehicle with your tires on the white line and see if the police officer pulls you over. Once pulled over, ensure the officer cites you by being a smart ass and telling the officer you don't think it'll hold up in court. Once cited, fight the ticket and see if the ticket holds up in court...if it does then you have precedent for the next time a police officer buzzes you with his tires on the white line :D. If it doesn't then you get to scare the hell out of police and other road users with no negative consequences. I can already guess at the result and don't suggest going out and buzzing police :).

Here's another law that could apply...if the police officer's tires are on the white line and his mirror is sticking into the bike lane he's probably violating this section of the vehicle code:


21658. Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
(b) Official signs may be erected directing slow-moving traffic to use a designated lane or allocating specified lanes to traffic moving in the same direction, and drivers of vehicles shall obey the directions of the traffic device.
I'm kind of wondering why the CHP says lane splitting is ok on a motorcycle/bicycle with the above section of the vehicle code on the books...seems pretty clear if a vehicle is lane splitting it's not within a single lane...

Edited: oops. Point I was about to make has already been brought up.

Once cited, fight the ticket and see if the ticket holds up in court...if it does then you have precedent for the next time a police officer buzzes you with his tires on the white line :D. If it doesn't then you get to scare the hell out of police and other road users with no negative consequences. I can already guess at the result and don't suggest going out and buzzing police :).

Here's another law that could apply...if the police officer's tires are on the white line and his mirror is sticking into the bike lane he's probably violating this section of the vehicle code:


Your precedent setting scenario in traffic court is worthy of a grinning icon since the precedent set for any future ticket recipient in traffic court is quite the funny fantasy.

Also funny is how the OP's concern for getting insufficient clearance of "less than 3 feet... often much less" has shrunk to the police car intruding into the so-called bike lane and buzzing the OP.

I take the OP's description of the incident to mean he actually observed the police car's track to be riding on the line after the close pass, not necessarily where it was when it was actually passing him. I've experienced many vehicles who after passing with sufficient/safe clearance merge/move right after passing all the way to the right hand side of the traffic lane. Where the motorists' wheels track AFTER passing is a non issue to the cyclist.

I take the OP's description of the incident to mean he actually observed the police car's track to be riding on the line after the close pass, not necessarily where it was when it was actually passing him.
That's a reasonable interpretation,,,from someone that wasn't there.

So there really is no such thing as "buzzing." We are either passed safely or clipped/struck.

That's a reasonable interpretation,,,from someone that wasn't there.

So there really is no such thing as "buzzing." We are either passed safely or clipped/struck.

You were there, and that's the way you described it. Just as you in the OP stated that you were in a bike lane though the subsequent picture hardly looks like one. I responded to what you depicted in the OP, not what you might have been thinking about or meant to write. You were there, how close was the offending police car? Other than too close for your liking. Was it in the "bike lane" alongside you, or wasn't it?

That is not a bike lane, that is a shoulder. You need to use an actual lane here.

I responded to what you depicted in the OP, not what you might have been thinking about or meant to write. You were there, how close was the offending police car? Other than too close for your liking. Was it in the "bike lane" alongside you, or wasn't it?

The original post seems pretty clear. It says that the car was on the white line "as the officer passed." This is a violation of requirement of section 21658, which JeffB502 quoted above, that vehicles be "driven as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane," regardless of whether there is a bike lane or not. As others have noted, if the wheel of the vehicle is on the white line, then other parts of the vehicle (such as the mirrors) will be outside of the lane.

Note that the original post also indicates that the car passed so close that the OP had to struggle to maintain his line. This in and of itself would appear to violate the requirement of section 21750 that passing be accomplished "without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle." If the drafters of the statute had intended to limit the application of the statute to situations where the passing vehicle actually makes physical contact with the overtaken vehicle, they could easily have included language to that effect in the statute, but they did not so limit the language of the statute.

If the lane depicted in the picture is actually designated as a bike lane, the section 21209 would also apply:


21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:


(1) To park where parking is permitted.

(2) To enter or leave the roadway.

(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection.

As far as the issue of setting precedent goes, while traffic court cases usually do not lead to precedential decisions, there usually is a right of appeal from traffic court decisions, so it is possible that there is some precedent. Civil cases, however, often do result in reported decisions that establish precedent. One could find those decisions by going to a law library, looking up the relevant sections of the statute, and reading the annotations that follow.

One could find those decisions by going to a law library, looking up the relevant sections of the statute, and reading the annotations that follow.
Yeah, you do that!:roflmao2: Go look up the court cases and precedents for violations based on a report of someone who reported that a motorist's tire appeared to be on the line demarcating the traffic lane.

^ That's an example of a bad bike lane.

Here's an example of a good one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/3015701752_c35e757ecc.jpg

A rarity (at least from what I encounter). A bike lane with room enough to pass other cyclists :love:

Do police in your area find it necessary to regularly travel at an unsafe speed & distance from you?

It appears to be the culture here.:mad:

The majority of my cycling miles are on four- to six-lane roads with posted speed limits of 50 & 55mph. Fortunately, the bike lanes are decent overall, the traffic is often light, and courteous drivers will usually move to an inner lane for safer passing.

Except for police cars. I seldom ever see them move to an inner lane. Of course that wouldn't bother me if they could just pass safely. Rather than serving as an example for responsible, safe driving, they tend to pass at relatively high speeds at an uncomfortably close distance (less than 3'...often much less).

And this happens frequently. Today was more of the same, except it occured on a long block where the bike lane is narrow and traffic is more concentrated. Almost all traffic was traveling in the two inner lanes when a police car takes advantage of the open right lane and busts right through. It happened so fast and so close that I had to work to maintain my line. As the officer passed, I watched as his right wheels tracked directly on the white line for as far as I could see. And, no, there wasn't an emergency; s/he waited at the next red light.

Is this really necessary on their part? Are they exempt from safely sharing the road all users? Am I wrong to have concerns about their driving abilities/judgment (based on the cyclists fatalities caused by law enforcement)?

I think, the officers that are, in a cruiser or, an SUV, think that the 'greater good', matters more than, how close they are when passing a cyclist. Those on motorcycles are much more aware cognizant of passing at a safe distance.

That is not a bike lane, that is a shoulder. You need to use an actual lane here.


That doesn't look like a bikelane to me. If it was, you should see something designating it as such within that stretch.

I'd probably ride on or about the white line there, preferring sitting a foot or so to the left of it. There's plenty of other lanes for other people to use to pass, I'd be encouraging them to use it. I've found even if they just do a partial lane change, they'll still pass you with plenty of room, but if they don't you've got a bit of leeway to the right.

If you really are concerned, it might be worth saying so at the local police station. That way, if you do start taking more of the lane and one of these cops has the audacity to pull you over for it, you'll at least have why you do it on the official record.

Welcome to CA... folks this is the sort of BL that our high speed arterials typically support...

Yup 55MPH right next to this pitiful suggestion of a BL.

Welcome to CA... folks this is the sort of BL that our high speed arterials typically support...

Yup 55MPH right next to this pitiful suggestion of a BL.

Be grateful. 'Round these parts, they don't even let cyclists on such roads. Not that I've ever felt the need to.

Then again, we do have this...

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Ney+Rd,+Capalaba+QLD+4157&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FQelW_4dsKghCQ&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=38.161973,47.373047&ll=-27.533847,153.220654&spn=0.054646,0.109863&z=14&layer=c&cbll=-27.561248,153.216792&panoid=BpFTGagXdK7vnYn0O666kw&cbp=2,9.36530730629022,,0,6.202883507229934

Yeah, you do that!:roflmao2: Go look up the court cases and precedents for violations based on a report of someone who reported that a motorist's tire appeared to be on the line demarcating the traffic lane.

I said nothing about "violations based on a report of someone who reported that a motorist's tire appeared to be on the line ..." But congratulations! You did a hell of a job of knocking down the strawman that you created!

My point is that precedential court cases interpreting motor vehicle statutes do exist, and that if you want to know what they say, you can find them using the annotations to the statute. I don't happen to the annotated California statutes handy, but I do have the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated. The chapter of the Motor Vehicle Code relating to "Rules of the Road" takes over 275 pages in the main volume, plus another 11 pages in a supplemental volume. The actual provisions of the Vehicle Code take up perhaps 25 pages in total. The remainder of the volume is comprised of annotations to court cases interpreting the various provisions of the code.

A rarity (at least from what I encounter). A bike lane with room enough to pass other cyclists :love:

That's one of the hallmarks of a good bike lane. Fittingly enough, that one's in Copenhagen.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/3030596508_130fed5be8.jpg

As is this.

This one's got room for three!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/3030590880_4baa7b5123.jpg?v=0

Just wanted to add some more info to the "bike lane vs shoulder" issue here...

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/jeffersonnb2.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/bugmeiser/miscellany/jeffersonnb3.jpg

The lane is actually marked as a bike lane, though the signs/markings are infrequent...almost as if they were an afterthought. Hell, by the sound of everyone here, the bike lane itself must have been an afterthought.

Definitely not Copenhagen.

Be grateful. 'Round these parts, they don't even let cyclists on such roads. Not that I've ever felt the need to.
Exactly right about "be grateful" to have some space to ride without being directly in front of 55mph traffic, even if is not as wide as some cyclists might like to feel comfortable.

I do legally commute on such a road with no bike lane, and the the traffic lanes are not as wide as portrayed in the OP's picture. I need to because there is no other alternative road or street to my job site.

no.

In Iowa they codified this and they require you to move over, if you can, for a vehicle on the shoulder.

Probably ridiculous though. I don't mind being passed on the highway by 65MPH traffic since I'm still 4-6 feet away on the shoulder. Maybe you don't have so much space?

In Iowa they codified this and they require you to move over, if you can, for a vehicle on the shoulder.

Probably ridiculous though. I don't mind being passed on the highway by 65MPH traffic since I'm still 4-6 feet away on the shoulder. Maybe you don't have so much space?

Are you responding to me? If so I can't figure out what you are trying to say in the first sentence. Who has to move to a shoulder in Iowa? And more importantly, what shoulder? You certainly don't mean the unpaved, river rock strewn, gravel pits at the side of state and local highways do you?