Advocacy & Safety - Los Altos Hills, Ca installs illegal NO BIKES stencil on El Monte Road.

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/los-altos-hills-you-are-on-notice.html

These people have stepped over the line.


They can't prohibit you from walking there, so equally they can't prohibit you from operating a human powered vehicle there.

I don't think it will last, hopefully it was someone who was uninformed but with good intentions, if it is not repealed it will be un-enforaceble anyhow

What good intentions would those be?

I don't think it will last, hopefully it was someone who was uninformed but with good intentions, if it is not repealed it will be un-enforaceble anyhow

We can ignore the sign, which is what I would do, but I am extremely concerned about motorist perception and our financial recovery rights in the event of a mishap. The LAH traffic engineer and city council need to be told about what happened to the City of Dana Point when they tried to ban bikes from Pacific Coast Highway 101.

What good intentions would those be?

Promoting faster traffic flow on a winding road with blind curves.

What good intentions would those be?

I just don't think many people understand bikes as much more then toys

Promoting faster traffic flow on a winding road with blind curves.

winding roads with blind curves should have slower traffic flow, not faster, even if bikes did not exist.

the short shoulder section of El Monte is roughly a quarter mile long and is moderately downhill. It is not a commute route, most cyclists on El Monte have descended Moody Road after climbing 900+ feet of steep gradients or the rolling pitches on Elena - the type of cyclist that will ride a moderate downhill at 20 MPH+

This section of road then ends with a traffic light at the college entrance, followed by another traffic light shortly thereafter.

A vehicle that encounters a cyclist at the start of this stretch and cannot pass, would be delayed roughly 20 seconds, and the majority of the time those seconds lost would be moot as the car would be delayed by a red light anyway, assuming the car is obeying the 35 MPH speed limit.

Seems like $1.25 worth of black spraypaint over the word NO would solve the problem pretty quickly...

Which particular law is being broken?

Which particular law is being broken?

The law that states that all cyclists have all the rights and responsibilities of cars and can use all roads EXCEPT for controlled access freeways. That road is not a controlled access freeway, therefore, cyclists can ride on that road and it is illegal to do exactly what the story said happened.

Which particular law is being broken?As noted in the link "The only places bicycles can be prohibited are freeways (CVC 21960) and clearly this road is not that."

winding roads with blind curves should have slower traffic flow, not faster, even if bikes did not exist. ... True -- I guess my sarcasm needed an emoticon. :)

Which particular law is being broken?
Bingo! If a law enforcement officer stops you, he/she must cite chapter and verse from the CVC. That in itself should prove interesting.

Bingo! If a law enforcement officer stops you, he/she must cite chapter and verse from the CVC. That in itself should prove interesting.And which particular law requires that the officer do this?

Ha Ha.

If I lived there, I would start ignoring that stencil immediately.

Bingo! If a law enforcement officer stops you, he/she must cite chapter and verse from the CVC. That in itself should prove interesting.

Most states have a law that says something like you must obey all Traffic Control Devices, signs and notices...

You guys should peacefully protest by riding up and down that hill. As for me, I'd start rollerskiing up and down that hill if I lived there.

You guys should peacefully protest by riding up and down that hill. As for me, I'd start rollerskiing up and down that hill if I lived there.

I'll peacefully protest by saying that the sign says "Bikes no" which makes little grammatical sense so if anyone stops me I'll say it looked like a sign made by some teenagers and will continue riding on the road at least until that sign is fixed to say "No bikes", then after that I will still ride and if someone stops me I will say that I have every right to be on this road. Of course it would be a lot better if a group of at least 20 can be gathered together to do this...

You guys should peacefully protest by riding up and down that hill. As for me, I'd start rollerskiing up and down that hill if I lived there.What it really needs is a bunch of people on unicycles, tricycles and pedal cars ...

What it really needs is a bunch of people on unicycles, tricycles and pedal cars ...

Horse and buggy too.

Most states have a law that says something like you must obey all Traffic Control Devices, signs and notices...

Wow, cool, so if I went out and stenciled NO CARS on various local streets... do you think the drivers wouldn't go there?

The fact is there is no indication that said sign is legal... and since cyclists have rights to all other similar roads... this is probably just a local that got fed up and took matters into their own hands.

See if there's such a sign in the DMV booklet. Nope. Must be some prank.

I think someplace needs a Critical Mass.

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/los-altos-hills-you-are-on-notice.html

Resolved.

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/victory.html

Resolved.

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/victory.html


The pavement marking was originally installed to encourage bicyclists to use the new pathway through the college. It was brought to our attention that some drivers may act more aggressively towards bicyclist with the markings in place.


I suppose a simple "bike route" sign was just too much to ask for, eh... :rolleyes:

Most states have a law that says something like you must obey all Traffic Control Devices, signs and notices...

Yup, and generally they have laws that allow localities to set their own specific ordinances and bans.

Yup, and generally they have laws that allow localities to set their own specific ordinances and bans.
Meaning that if you violate an illegally-placed ban, like this one, and a cop pulls you over, you're going to have a hard time talking yourself out of the situation by arguing the legality of the traffic sign you disobeyed. Because at that point, it's between you and the courts.

Which is why it's good that something like this gets taken care of right away.

The pavement marking was originally installed to encourage bicyclists to use the new pathway through the college. It was brought to our attention that some drivers may act more aggressively towards bicyclist with the markings in place.
Political speak for: "We screwed up big time, we were going to get our ass sued; lets say some BS to fix it and make us look like the good guys (that we are not).:twitchy:

I'm disappointed that didn't use legal options to improve safety, to wit, "Bicycles on Road" and "Speed Limit 15" signs would have been perfectly legal and served exactly the same purpose.

I'm disappointed that didn't use legal options to improve safety, to wit, "Bicycles on Road" and "Speed Limit 15" signs would have been perfectly legal and served exactly the same purpose.

Strange but true (paraphrasing a bit) - speed limits under 25 MPH are not legal in California. There might be some exception based on showing a survey that cars typically drive at that lower speed.

This particular stretch of road has a 25 MPH speed limit. Based on local concerns the cops started vigorously enforcing the speed limit. All of the tickets were dismissed because the traffic survey showed that the typical speed on El Monte is much higher than 25 MPH. California law indicates that radar cannot be used to enforce the speed limit if the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed on the road.

Los Altos Hills decided to leave the unenforcable 25 MPH speed limit in place rather than raise the speed limit to an enforceable number. Hard to say what is the correct call.

Strange but true (paraphrasing a bit) - speed limits under 25 MPH are not legal in California. There might be some exception based on showing a survey that cars typically drive at that lower speed.

This particular stretch of road has a 25 MPH speed limit. Based on local concerns the cops started vigorously enforcing the speed limit. All of the tickets were dismissed because the traffic survey showed that the typical speed on El Monte is much higher than 25 MPH. California law indicates that radar cannot be used to enforce the speed limit if the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed on the road.

Los Altos Hills decided to leave the unenforcable 25 MPH speed limit in place rather than raise the speed limit to an enforceable number. Hard to say what is the correct call.

I just don't understand how it is that if the majority of people at a particular place break a law it then becomes OK to break that law at that place..... does that mean that is the majority of drivers road rage cyclists on a particular road then it becomes legal to do so? that's the message being sent, and maybe that's why so many drivers seem to obey the laws that they think should exist rather than the ones that actually do.

I just don't understand how it is that if the majority of people at a particular place break a law it then becomes OK to break that law at that place..... does that mean that is the majority of drivers road rage cyclists on a particular road then it becomes legal to do so? that's the message being sent, and maybe that's why so many drivers seem to obey the laws that they think should exist rather than the ones that actually do.
That's the side effect of a law designed to prevent speed traps (by arbitrarily setting up a low speed limit on a fast stretch of road, and ticketing everyone).

However, the 85th percentile is not the only factor (the locality commissions a Speed Zone Survey to come up with a recommended speed). In the survey, there can be other factors noted (like blind corners, bike riders, no shoulder, etc) used to justify a lower speed limit.

Then the police can legally use radar to enforce whatever speed limit the survey recommends.

Clearly the town council are idiots, and not really interested in safety.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The next step then would be traffic calming, i.e., speed bumps every 500 feet thereby inducing motorists to travel at the posted speed. Is that also restricted in California, where cars are more important than people?

http://sanjosehatespedestrians.priss.org/no-ped-xing01.php


Strange but true (paraphrasing a bit) - speed limits under 25 MPH are not legal in California. There might be some exception based on showing a survey that cars typically drive at that lower speed.

This particular stretch of road has a 25 MPH speed limit. Based on local concerns the cops started vigorously enforcing the speed limit. All of the tickets were dismissed because the traffic survey showed that the typical speed on El Monte is much higher than 25 MPH. California law indicates that radar cannot be used to enforce the speed limit if the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed on the road.

Los Altos Hills decided to leave the unenforcable 25 MPH speed limit in place rather than raise the speed limit to an enforceable number. Hard to say what is the correct call.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The next step then would be traffic calming, i.e., speed bumps every 500 feet thereby inducing motorists to travel at the posted speed. Is that also restricted in California, where cars are more important than people?

http://sanjosehatespedestrians.priss.org/no-ped-xing01.php

Try this one on for size. Letter to the editor published in SF's #2 newspaper recommending that what we really need to do is get those cyclists to dismount and walk across the street.

..."The solution is simple: Put in a right turn lane and traffic light for cars -- and require that cyclists dismount and walk their bikes across the intersection during a pedestrian countdown."...

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/i-am-holier-than-kim-kubik-of-san.html

I think I am actually more pissed off this got published than I am about the LAH fiasco.

Clearly the town council are idiots, and not really interested in safety.

Oh, you mean "motorists," right? As in: "Clearly the town council are motorists and not really interested in safety."

They put up SLOW CHILDREN signs all the time in residential areas, why not SLOW BICYCLES?

(Though I have to say, putting the word "for" in between those words would clear up any misunderstandings)

http://holierthanyou.blogspot.com/2008/12/los-altos-hills-you-are-on-notice.html

They are insane!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The next step then would be traffic calming, i.e., speed bumps every 500 feet thereby inducing motorists to travel at the posted speed. Is that also restricted in California, where cars are more important than people?

http://sanjosehatespedestrians.priss.org/no-ped-xing01.php

They obviously want the Starbucks customers to wait for an extra traffic light walk signal to get over to the Italian restaurant.

That road would have been 10 minutes and an aerosol can away from saying "Bikes only. No cars."

some updated info.....from the San Jose Mercury News, Roadshow column.....

Q A "No Bikes" sign has been stenciled into the pavement on El Monte Road in Los Altos Hills past the intersection with Elena/Moody/College Loop. Why?

Jeff Orum

Sunnyvale

A The ban was installed to encourage bicyclists to use a new pathway through the college. But upon further review, town officials fear some drivers may act more aggressively toward bicyclists with the markings in place, so signs will be removed this week.

All of the tickets were dismissed because the traffic survey showed that the typical speed on El Monte is much higher than 25 MPH. California law indicates that radar cannot be used to enforce the speed limit if the speed limit is lower than the 85th percentile speed on the road.Judging from later replies in the thread, this appears to be actually true? Wow. Just wow.

--J

lulz

lulz

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/image.php?u=79733&type=sigpic&dateline=1226637798

Thank you for bumping up this thread with a comment neither pertinent nor understandable, ultimately serving no purpose towards the continuation of this discussion.

-Kurt

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/image.php?u=79733&type=sigpic&dateline=1226637798

The fact that you have an image macro at the ready reveals that you have entirely too much time on your hands.

The fact that you have an image macro at the ready reveals that you have entirely too much time on your hands.

Only took 5 seconds to borrow it from a friend at another forum :p

-Kurt

P.S.: Time is never wasted in the endeavor of proper English.

ON is just short of two letters to spell ONLY:rolleyes:

In any event it is being removed...The city paid to have it installed, materials and labor and is now paying again, materials, labor and dump fees to remove it. Tax payer dollars at work. WOOO HOOO!

just sayin'

In any event it is being removed...The city paid to have it installed, materials and labor and is now paying again, materials, labor and dump fees to remove it. Tax payer dollars at work. WOOO HOOO!

Reminds me of the Yehuda Moon comic strip sketches.

http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-03-26

-Kurt