Advocacy & Safety - Bike Lanes & Controlled Intersections

This is a question regarding California Bike Lanes and light-controlled intersections.

A section of road that is well-travelled by cyclists in the Bay Area has a wide bike lane. A several places along the route there is a T-intersection. At most intersections the stop-line comes all the way across the bike lane to the edge of the pavement. At one place the stop line is painted to the edge of the bike lane and stops. I have been told, but not by a lawful authority, that if the stop line does not extend across the bike lane, a cyclist is not required to stop. Also, I think it is correct that if the stop line does extend across the bike lane, the cyclist is required to stop.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I was riding in the bike lane and came up to a red light at a T-intersection where the stop line extended across the bike lane. I was travelling though the top of the "T". I stopped at the light while a couple on bikes came by without stopping. The lady said to her male companion, as they went by, that they didn't need to stop because they were in the bike lane. When I passed them shortly after the light changed, I told them that I thought the stop light applied to them despite the fact they were in the bike lane. The lady seemed pretty P.O.'d about my comment.

Does anyone know what CA regulation covers this or which interpretation is correct?

This is a question regarding California Bike Lanes and light-controlled intersections.

A section of road that is well-travelled by cyclists in the Bay Area has a wide bike lane. A several places along the route there is a T-intersection. At most intersections the stop-line comes all the way across the bike lane to the edge of the pavement. At one place the stop line is painted to the edge of the bike lane and stops. I have been told, but not by a lawful authority, that if the stop line does not extend across the bike lane, a cyclist is not required to stop. Also, I think it is correct that if the stop line does extend across the bike lane, the cyclist is required to stop.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I was riding in the bike lane and came up to a red light at a T-intersection where the stop line extended across the bike lane. I was travelling though the top of the "T". I stopped at the light while a couple on bikes came by without stopping. The lady said to her male companion, as they went by, that they didn't need to stop because they were in the bike lane. When I passed them shortly after the light changed, I told them that I thought the stop light applied to them despite the fact they were in the bike lane. The lady seemed pretty P.O.'d about my comment.

Does anyone know what CA regulation covers this or which interpretation is correct?


well. just be happy when the dunces get run over. i mean seriously, how dumb can a person be. "oh nooooo! a car!? coming through a green light?! that's just silliness! that's how bastard people think! that's it! you're just bastard people!"

... i just had to make fun of that. :D

well. just be happy when the dunces get run over. i mean seriously, how dumb can a person be. "oh nooooo! a car!? coming through a green light?! that's just silliness! that's how bastard people think! that's it! you're just bastard people!"

... i just had to make fun of that. :DMerton,

If you read my post, you would realize that the cyclists were crossing the intersection at the top of the "T". There's some, but not much, chance that a car would run into the bike lane. The reason I want cyclists to obey the traffic signals is I don't want them giving me, and other law-abiding cyclists, a bad name.

Bicycles must obey traffic signals and stop signs even in the bike lane.

FWIW, although I don't know the official regulations, I think your interpretation of the stopline is correct.

Maybe it has to do with whether the ending side street is coming from the left or right. If it's coming from the left, the only traffic anyone in the bike lane would have to be concerned with is bike traffic coming from the side street (car traffic wouldn't have occasion to turn into the bike lane from a left side street). But if the side street comes from the right, car traffic has to cross the bike lane to get into the car lane(s) of the through street. So it'd be appropriate to have a stop line in the bike lane. Just speculating, but maybe that's the difference.

The other reason to stop, even though one will not conflict with any motor traffic, is the possibility that the light turned red to permit a pedestrian to cross the through street.

The other reason to stop, even though one will not conflict with any motor traffic, is the possibility that the light turned red to permit a pedestrian to cross the through street.Absolutely correct! There is a pedestrian crosswalk that this intersection. I guess the next time this happens I should slow down and talk to the offender a bit more rather blowing by them muttering some comments in their general direction. :rolleyes:

It's funny and distressing to me that other cyclists don't want to be reminded of their responsibilities as cyclists. This seems to occur more frequently with "casual" cyclists than with "experienced" cyclists.

With regard to whether lack of a stop line exempts bikes from the traffic light, check the California traffic code. This seems a bit esoteric of an indication to me though since it might be difficult to tell if a stop line is across the bike lane until your up close to it. It would also be impossible for motorists in the cross lanes to determine whether a bicycle must stop or not which could be problematic for large trucks that need to make a wide turn. I would expect that if a cyclist was exempt from the traffic light at some, but not all intersections, then there would be signs posted.

Supcom,

I checked up on the CA DMV Rules of the Road last night. From what I read, it looks like regardless of the presence of a "limit line", all vehicles (and I assume this to include bicycles) are required to stop before the traffic signal.

I might still keep riding according to my original interpretation, though!

You might want to email someone at the Bicycle civil liberties union ( www.bclu.org ). I think the guy there who would know is Jason Megs (sp?). He has gone to court in Sacramento and the Bay area for tickets issue durring critical mass rides and won repeatedly.

Cheers

Supcom,

I checked up on the CA DMV Rules of the Road last night. From what I read, it looks like regardless of the presence of a "limit line", all vehicles (and I assume this to include bicycles) are required to stop before the traffic signal.

I might still keep riding according to my original interpretation, though!

I've been told what you are thinking, but have not found it in writing. If this logic is correct, then contractors painting the white stop lines are incorrect where there is not a crosswalk, since they many times paint them all the way across. This situation exists in several places on Warm Springs Blvd in Fremont.

I checked up on the CA DMV Rules of the Road last night. From what I read, it looks like regardless of the presence of a "limit line", all vehicles (and I assume this to include bicycles) are required to stop before the traffic signal.

I might still keep riding according to my original interpretation, though!

In hindsight, I think I'd like to change my position and agree with the DMV rules requiring all traffic to stop. Imagine if you will that a bicycle is also transiting the intersection and merging into the bike lane. That cyclist would surely expect cross-traffic to be halted if he/she had the green.

The only thing I am talking about is crossing an intersection at the top of the 'T". For purposes of illustration, look at the "T". The bike lane and bicyclist are travelling from right to left across the top of the "T" with no limit line. There is a traffic light controlling the intersection at the junction of the horizontal and vertical parts. Traffic, in one case, the off-ramp of an interstate, is travelling from bottom to top. The only area of concern would be traffic making a left-hand turn onto the top of the "T". There is no pedestrian crosswalk in the area. Certainly the cyclist has to stop if he/she is travelling from left to right.

Certainly the cyclist has to stop if he/she is travelling from left to right.

Actually, I was talking about a bicycle approaching from the bottom of the T and turning left through the intersection into the cross-traffic bike lane. If a cyclist travelling right to left in the cross-traffic lane continued through while the cyclist approaching from the bottom was in the process of making a left turn, there would be a chance for a collision much as if a car were transgressing from right to left failed to stop while a car turning left from the bottom had the green.

If a cyclist travelling right to left in the cross-traffic lane continued through while the cyclist approaching from the bottom was in the process of making a left turn, there would be a chance for a collision much as if a car were transgressing from right to left failed to stop while a car turning left from the bottom had the green.But when you're travelling between 15-20 mph there's enough time to see if a cyclist is coming up to the intersection (from bottom to top of the T) and stop if needed. Would you stop (traveling right to left) if the light was red and there obviously were no cyclists approaching the intersection? Remember, you are traveling in a bike lane and not out in the roadway.

I run into this situation freqently one of my favorite routes (khuon should be familiar with the Lk Samm Prkwy), and I always assumed that I had to stop when crossing the top of the "T", even though there is no stop line (not that I really stop anyway). Then I thought, what is the difference between the bike lane and just riding on the shoulder crossing the top of the "T"?. They're both separated from traffic by a solid white line - would I really be expected to stop for the light when I was riding the shoulder? Not that I know the answer, I'm just posing the question.

But when you're travelling between 15-20 mph there's enough time to see if a cyclist is coming up to the intersection (from bottom to top of the T) and stop if needed. Would you stop (traveling right to left) if the light was red and there obviously were no cyclists approaching the intersection? Remember, you are traveling in a bike lane and not out in the roadway.

I understand what you're saying and part of me would say that no I don't think I'd want to stop. However, I think it would be hypocritical for us to not follow formal vehicular traffic control and still claim we're a road vehicle. And as far as I understand it, the shoulder and especially the bike lane is still considered part of the roadway. Also, would you tolerate someone just rolling through a stoplight/stopsign in a car if say the speed limit was 25MPH? I know I wouldn't.

They're both separated from traffic by a solid white line - would I really be expected to stop for the light when I was riding the shoulder? Not that I know the answer, I'm just posing the question.

Legally, I think the shoulder is still governed by traffic lights. But since you mentioned Lake Sammamish Parkway, you have also brought up another interesting question. On the south end of the lake is SE 58th. St. which has a westbound segregated (with a barrier) HOV right lane which doesn't typically have to stop at the T-intersection near Costco. Now while many people use the provided sidewalk/path to cut through that section of road, I and some others I know will also occasionally ride in the HOV lane (no shoulder). Does anyone know if this is actually legal?

Khuon -

I agree with you for the most part. I do stop at the T-intersection where there is a pedestrian crosswalk and a limit line. This is where I stopped and the other couple did not.

There is a similar intersection closer to where I live that has no limit line, no pedestrian crossing, and is near the bottom of an uphill grade. The road I am traveling on has two lanes of traffic in each direction plus a bike lane on each side and a single lane for traffic coming off the interstate from the bottom of the T. All traffic coming off the interstate must turn left (there is a right-hand turn lane that off splits before the light). At this intersection I generally slow down for the light and cautiously roll through the light making sure that no cars are careening through the light that might swerve into the bike lane.

So far I have not been given any warnings by the police, although after reading the vehicle code in greater detail it appears that it is a violation.

I dont stop when crossing the top of a T. Not only do you have to watch for pedestrians, but also cars coming out of, or entering, commercial establishments at the top of the T.

At most intersections the stop-line comes all the way across the bike lane to the edge of the pavement. At one place the stop line is painted to the edge of the bike lane and stops. I have been told, but not by a lawful authority, that if the stop line does not extend across the bike lane, a cyclist is not required to stop. Also, I think it is correct that if the stop line does extend across the bike lane, the cyclist is required to stop.
I think making too many laws for different vehicles to obey is downright confusing and dangerous, since many motorists don't understand even the basic rules applying to cyclists. Motorists can not always be trusted to respect bike lane markings when trying to make it through a light.

I have the same situation on my way to work.

The only way that I can come in conflict with a car is if the car crosses out of it's lane and into the bike lane.

I still understand that bikes should stop here despite no stop line, pedestrian traffic, or conflict with cars, but it's hard to get cyclists to do this just as it's hard to get cars to stop making right hooks, parking or passing in bike lanes or driving 10 mph over the speed limit.

I know this is not at all the same situation described, but one everyone deals with it imagine. That is when you are riding along a main road and a side road intersects only from the left. Cars stop and even though they see me make their left turn (to go same direction as me.) They almost always give me more than 3ft. of clearance, but I find it rude since I wonder if they see me and if they may over turn into me. So should a car wait for the cyclist to pass then make their left turn and the pass you or is it considered acceptable to turn and immediately become right next to you on your left?

Al