Encounter with LA Sheriff on my commute to work.
 

Had this encounter with LASD yesterday on my commute to work. Things like this can really discourage anyone from starting to ride a bike.

Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of confusion over what a sharrow actually means.

I had interpreted it to mean that bicyclists are encouraged to take the whole lane. Cars are free to use those lanes but with the understanding that they will be mixed in with slower traffic and often times they will be forced to turn off.

The way one has been implemented downtown here is that a wide green stripe was added, - apparently where the bikes are supposed to be; off to the right. Disappointing. What is the difference between that and a regular street?

I like how you asked for his name and he had to look at his badge. ;)

My guess is that if he had ticketed you, you would have won in court.

Did you get his number? I'd turn the video over to the Sheriffs department. That dude is in some serious need of some training. The sharrows, like most places are right down the middle of the lane.

From my understanding, they are basically an on the road version of a "Bike May Use Full Lane" sign. They don't have special powers, just indicating where lane is too narrow to share and that is generally where a safer spot to ride is. And that drivers should expect people at that point since the lane is too narrow to share.

Video already got a lot of attention and I was already interviewed by the local news about it this afternoon.

In California,when there are 2 lanes,you can only let 5 cars get behind you before you are impeding traffic.You are suppose to let the cars go through.On a 3 lane,cars can back up for miles.

VC 21656

yeah, LASD has been notified of it. They even tweeted this last night after a bunch of people started sending it to them.

@LASD_News20h
Sharrows are Shared Lane Markings indicating bicyclist may use full lane http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/sharrows/ #bicycling pic.twitter.com/gpDx0brYvN

True, but there were 4 lanes, 2 in each direction, so rule does not apply on that street in the video.

LA Sheriffs often don't know the law, and that goes for a lot of things, not just lane sharing or cycling issues.

I haven't been to LA, but it's been pretty uniform where I've lived - police are typically poorly educated and on the scene judges for complicated issues. They aren't lawyers...many aren't college grads. They won't be held accountable for being wrong most of the time and they can't be - we're telling them to act as on scene arbitrators for legal issues they aren't trained to understand. You get through the encounter and appeal afterwards. Bright, educated people generally would never want that job - it's difficult, dangerous and dirty. You're dealing with the pond scum of humanity most of the time and you aren't getting the best and brightest. Mistakes are to be expected.

Too true.

I don't completely disagree.. but if I as a citizen am expected to know the laws and if I break them I will be punished. They should really know them, since its their job and have to enforce them.

I tend to believe that it's the cyclist responsibility to ensure you're as out of the way as you can be for your own safety, whether there is paint on the tarmac or not. This is two prong, both to ensure cars can slip by you safely & to also not aggravate the motorists by holding them back, thus even more gravely endangering your safety. I don't understand how people think the existence of a sharrow entitles them to the entire lane or block traffic. You are not given the right of way by any means, as it is not a marked bike lane, a crosswalk, nor a MUP. In nearly any circumstance, a cyclist is not at the top of the right of way food chain anyway.

Sharrows are more of a latent signal to motorists that this is a heavily used bicycling route & to be aware this is a shared road. It's supposed to increase awareness to motorists that cyclists can and will occupy some of the roadspace. The OP was riding down the middle of the lane and probably blocking motorists from coming around when he could just as easily been hugging the curb & allowing most to pass safely. For most of the video there were no parked cars along the right -- completely viable cycling space to allow a few cars to pass.

It doesn't appear they devoted a bike lane there, so sorry to say, I think the officer was correct in this instance & handled the situation politely and professionally. Believe me, I am not generally one to stick up for the 'man' but I think posters on this thread are misinformed. I see this is all over the web now & apparently I'm in the minority, but the fact remains the officer was justified at advising the cyclist to keep right.

http://ladotbikeblog.wordpress.com/2.../sharrows-101/


Stay safe out there y'all!

Very good point. I'd go so far as to say, if you're a cop and you don't know the law in a particular situation, don't even try to enforce a guess. It doesn't take a degree or a high IQ to realize when you don't actually know something.

Sorry but I disagree with almost all of the bolded part. I think you're right that FRAP laws and practice are purposed to facilitate the free flow of traffic, but the rest is factually, legally wrong to my belief and knowledge.

Wow, you are wrong.
First the lane is substandard, not enough room for me to safetly share the lane with another vehicle. You may feel safe doing that, but I do not. 2nd, its a 4 lane road, with two in each direction, which means other road users can use that whole other lane and move around me. 3rd, I was moving at roughly the same speed as the rest of traffic, so I wasn't even holding anyone up. Just because there is no bike lane, doesn't mean I don't have the right of way. Streets are for everyone.

Your comment about sharrows is wrong too. Its not a latent signal to motorists, its used in place of a Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign. See below. Even if they weren't there, the lane is still substandard which means its not safe to share and you can use the whole lane.

I'm not the only one that feels that way.
http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2013...sharrow-means/
http://kneel28.tumblr.com/post/56359...so-many-levels
http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/07/24...al-media-star/

According to the 2012 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
Section 9C.07 describes a Shared Lane Marking that may be used in addition to or instead of the Bicycles
May Use Full Lane sign to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane.
Support:
04 The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) (Also refer to CVC 21202(a)(3)) defines a "substandard width lane" as a
"lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the same lane."

It's really sad, but not unexpected, that employees of the LASD are not well versed on the traffic laws they are sworn to enforce.

I saw the comments saying it's the officer that's not informed, and I realize my opinion is unpopular here and on the rest of the 'web. I still think the OP cyclist is abusing the existence of a sharrow, which should mean that it's a shared lane, not a lane available for cyclists to take over. I'm all for blocking a car from passing me in an unsafe situation, but I think this cyclist was running down the middle of the lane without even considering tucking to the right a few feet to allow some cars to pass. As I said, there's plenty of space in the 'getting doored' area (just to the left of the oil slicks and dust strip) where there's no parked cars for the majority of the vid. As a cyclist you should be able to smoothly work the road to use this space and come into the lane when needed which is how I'd interpret the intent of a sharrow, again to increase awareness to motorists that cyclists may be coming into the road. The lane looked plenty wide to let cars pass if the rider had been keeping right.

I am the rider in question. There was not enough room. I ride this route every day. Even if there was, I was going at roughly the same pace as the rest of traffic, making it pointless. Its not safe or predictable to be weaving back and forth in and out of primary lane position. Shared lane doesn't mean you have to share it at the same time, but that this lane is shared by cars and bikes. Trust me, I've experimented with different lane positions and doing exactly as you have said. I move to the right, a driver comes up next to me and takes forever to pass and then I am forced to stay in the door zone or stop completely or risk a dangerous maneuver to get back into the main part of the lane.

That being said, further back on my route it is only 1 lane in each direction. During that section of my ride I am required as a slow moving vehicle to pull off when 5 or more cars are stacked behind me. I use the full lane until it is safe for me to pull to the side and allow any traffic that is backed up by.

.

Agreed, and from the link you provide in an earlier post:

At 11 feet from the curb, a bicyclist riding through the center of the Sharrows symbol rides clear of any doors that may open. According to the CAMUTCD, Sharrows are intended to do 5 things:
Reduce the chance of bicyclists impacting open doors of parked vehicles on a shared roadway with on-street parallel parking
Assist bicyclists in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane
Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way
Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists
Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling

Really ?. The presence as well as LOCATION of the sharrow means that somebody in the friggin government determined that this is where it is safe as well as appropriate for a cyclist to ride. Else why paint it where they did ?. Why not paint it over on the extreme side of the lane if that's where you want the cyclist to ride ?. This particular stretch of road has no shoulder and as such the folks planning for this sharrow to be painted were entirely aware that a cyclist is going to take the lane, right on top of where they painted it.

End of story. The cop was an ill informed moron (as is often typical).

Alright, respect!! I appreciate that you're conscientious about what you're doing & I understand you know the road well, so I'll take your word for it. I'm sure we all have our own tricky sections of road we know & have our own way of riding them. I totally understand what you're saying about the halfway pass in traffic & how it can create a dangerous situation so I can understand your strategy in that situation. Looking back at the video yes you are going nearly the speed of motor traffic & not really preventing folks from making lights & that sort of stuff. It's unfortunate that the officer didn't notice this & just leave you be.

Still I disagree about the existence of the sharrow itself having much if any weight in a lane takeover scenario. I'd do the same blocking kind of thing (as visibly and predictably as possible) if I felt the road was unsafe for cars to pass whether there was a sharrow or not. I do not, and also do not believe that motorists perceive sharrowed lanes as a 'give-right-of-way' scenario. To me the sharrow is a bit of a joke & I fear that some cyclists may feel empowered with confidence by their presence. I've never seen a public announcement, a flyer or any sort of communication to the common people (as in non-cyclists) about what they are, but we as cyclists have attempted to seek out the purpose & understand what those things are. Since the cyclists I've spoken to seem to have varying interpretations of what sharrows actually mean, what on earth do the motorists think they mean? Can't be good...

which I interpret to mean... let them pass if possible!

I think your viewing from the wrong perspective. Its not the job of the cyclists to make sure a driver can get by. Its the responsibility of of a driver to make sure they can pass safely, just like if another car was driving slower. With the exception of the when a turn-out is available and you are holding up 5 or more vehicles as per California Vehicle Code.

The sharrow being there does nothing to change lane position. I road in the same spot before they put the sharrows in and would have the same legal right to do so.

But the link you cite above directly disagrees with the officer's admonition to stay far to the right and your suggestion that the OP should have been "hugging the curb." From the link that you cited:

"Sharrows have the added benefit of encouraging bicyclists to ride further out in the road where drivers can see them in much the same way they see other cars. A bicycle traveling at 12 feet from the curb is likely to make a car move over to the left lane when they want to pass. When a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and car to share the space, a Sharrow puts a bicyclist in the safest position.

In the spirit of Hans Monderman, forcing these types of interactions between cars and bicyclists can seem more dangerous while actually making the street a safer place for both. When drivers think their interaction with a bicyclist is dangerous, they will take more care in their actions. It is when a driver thinks their interaction with a bicyclist is safe, or when a driver fails to even consider a bicyclist, that a driver and a bicyclist are at the greatest risk of getting into an accident."

So the link you cited explicitly states that one purpose of the sharrow markings is to encourage cyclists to ride farther out into the lane thereby forcing any drivers that wish to pass to have to move over to their left. That was exactly where the OP was riding and therefore the patrol officer should not have made any objection.