Hello all,

I know that bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities as the driver on the road, but I can't seem to find anything in the California law that states that a bicycle is a vehicle. Well is it? Is there a definition of what a vehicle is? It would seem that any "contraption" operating legally on the Cali roads would be considered a vehicle, but I'm just arriving at that conclusion with a deduction.

Thank you for reading this and I most welcome any and all responses.

CA Codes (veh:21200-21212)

I've seen this and read it. No where does it say that the bicycle is a vehicle. What is a vehicle? (Please use the Cali Vehicle Code for your definition.)

Bicycle is a "vehicle", but not a "motor vehicle" per Calif DMV. I used to live in California and know for certain one can get a ticket on a bicycle

I guess I am actually wrong per vehicle code:

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.

Really doesn't matter as traffic laws apply to bicycles anyway.

Interesting, so I guess an e-bike is a vehicle, but a bicycle isn't?

A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions
applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division.

So that is about as close as we get to being declared riding a vehicle? A deduction.

Bottom line... a bicycle is a "human powered device" that has all the rights of a vehicle and carries all the responsibilities of a vehicle... but it is not, by definition, a vehicle...

It doesn't really matter. E-bikes (speed-limited electric assist bicycles) are a new legal concern (which makes them ambiguous). Most states appear to classify them as bicycles.

Why do you care whether or not a bicycle is a vehicle? As it happens, it doesn't really matter whether or not a bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle (an object/thing). States really aren't concerned with bicycles (as objects or things). They are really only concerned with their use by persons.

What matters is the person using a bicycle on the roadway.

The law quoted by "10 Wheels" is the relevant law that grants bicyclists the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles.

This law (most, if not all, states have it, in the same or similar words) makes a bicyclist equivalent to a driver (with respect to "rights and duties").

Vehicles have no rights.

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.

Why couldn't a person argue that I'm riding a vehicle (non-battery powered), by making the argument that when there's a tail wind or riding down a hill, it is not via human power?

Yeah yeah... add "operator" into the sentence and don't have a cow, man...

Don't be sloppy.

The difference between the operator and the thing being operated is the key to understanding what the law is talking about (and the basis, I suppose, of the OP's question).

A person could argue any bizarre or weird thing he/she likes; many do on this list and elsewhere. Whether anybody (especially anybody with authority) will listen to, be convinced by, or respond in a positive manner to such "arguments" is another story.

One can make any argument one wants. That doesn't mean it would be successful. Many times common sense prevails.

???

Why would "a person" make such an odd argument?

I'm pretty-sure something is (legally) always a vehicle or not a vehicle.

The "exclusively" is interesting: it indicates that nothing other than "human power" can make it move. But, it's generally understood that bicycles can move even when not pedalling. That is, coasting is considered a normal/common state for "human powered" devices.

In this case, it's generally understood that "exclusively human powered" means the device does not have a motor (like a car or a moped, which can also be pedalled) and pretty-much only moves when human powered.

E-bikes are not "exclusively human powered" but the law can define them as being such (which is what it appears states are doing).

So it's pretty much agreed by everyone that a bicycle(human-powered) is not a vehicle in California?

So a bicycle is not a vehicle.

But a bicyclist should be treated like the driver of a vehicle.

Got it.

GH

Can you tell me where it is stated that in the vehicle code, or is that just your personal opinion? And yes I know you can get a ticket with a bike, but that's not the question.

Like I already posted, I was wrong. Section 670's definition actually excludes "human powered" devices from being designated as vehicles. My bad.

NOOOOOO ..... Bike riders are NOT DRIVERS anywhere. Totally a BS idea/ delusion of VCers. Show me your licence. Bulloney.
Bicycle riders can ride on ANY and ALL shoulders. Driving applies only to MOTOR vehicles.

More BULLoney.
Bicycles do NOT DRIVE. They are SLOW moving vehicles. Any provisions about NOT driving on shoulders, closed bridges, etc, can NOT apply to bicycles.

Sorry bout that. I didn't catch that.

Ummmm there's more than that! We do have provisions to be able to ride on the roads and take the lane. At least here in Cali. And yes, you don't drive a bicycle.