TobinH

The turning lane (real) is visible from the link. It's not an intersection. If you click down the road once or twice it is more clear.

mkadam68

There's alot more on this than is being considered or stated here. Local cyclists (perhaps not tri-geeks, though), are quarreling with state police about this stretch of roadway. According to CA laws, cyclists are allowed to take the lane because it is a sub-standard width lane, and therefore does not subject cyclists to the "as far right as practicable" requirement. (BTW, there is no state requirement for single-file riding, either.) There have been numerous examples of cops giving tickets to cyclists, and the cyclists winning in court anyway. There have been meetings between cyclists (replete with lawyers) and local police station captains who agree to our rights under the law, but apparently the cops on the street haven't gotten the memo. There have been protest rides, etc...

As for this motorist who also "happens to be a cyclist"-- yeah right. I'd bet 2-3 weekends a year after they dust off their cruiser and head down to the beach path.

Last:

• the shoulder is not considered a part of the roadway (even though cops sometimes do & issue tickets that eventually get overturned!),
• it is not a "bike lane" (this stretch of PCH only very recently got a couple miles of bike lane, but not here),
• as there is another lane for motorists, we can take the lane anyway as we're not "blocking" traffic, and
• cyclists are not required to ride in it. Some do, as they don't feel like fighting w/motorists moving at 60mph. Some don't as is our right.

The "motorist" in the above thread needs to bug off and learn the laws.

unterhausen

was just thinking about this the other day. Who makes up rules for motorists where they have to do more than the law requires so that people don't hate all motorists?

Seattle Forrest

Oh the hyperbole! I'm not any less safe riding around Seattle and forest service roads through the Cascades now than I was before this nerd rage incident in Los Angeles.

Uannayven

The roads I normally ride wide a nice wide shoulder like that are ones with a 65mph speed limit. I tend to stay on the shoulder. Even if the law says I can take the lane, with cars going 55mph plus I will still stay on the shoulder. I am old enough to realize my mortality.
Besides legally being right or wrong getting squashed by a car like a grape means you are just as dead.

StanSeven

Good post! And pissed off drivers often take it out on the next cyclists

unterhausen

pure Stockholm syndrome. The road ragers are going to road rage no matter what the last cyclist did or didn't do

wallrat

I'd take the shoulder but don't fault him for taking the lane. It also wouldn't annoy me if I see someone taking the lane.

TrojanHorse

If a tree falls in the forest in Seattle, did it exist?

Clearly, "everywhere" means "Los Angeles" for the purposes of this tale of woe. I do enjoy it when somebody signs up for a new account on a message board like this to take their outrage and high dudgeon to new heights. "You cyclists!" Of course he was calm and reasonable, right? I can see it now in my mind's eye. He may have been wearing pristine white robes at the time too, the way I see it. Flipping off drivers in 6,000 pound death machines is a very poor judgment call though.

I personally would ride on that shoulder, especially near dusk with iffy light, distracted drivers and sun-in-eyes syndrome. If the speed limit is 60 that means you KNOW there are cars going 80+ and I'd prefer a little distance.

RollCNY

Ummmm.... I think the guy's in A&S and Living Car Free do.

prathmann

I certainly can't tell based on a Google Streetview image whether I would or wouldn't use a particular shoulder. The image doesn't tell me about the relative surface quality of the two options, visibility issues that may exist at a particular time, transient debris, etc. What's clear is that the California Vehicle Code gives each cyclist the right to choose between riding on the roadway surface or on the shoulder. I would also take into account that the agency in charge of a given roadway segment is under no legal obligation to maintain the shoulder such that it is a safe place to travel as opposed to its function as an emergency breakdown area - i.e. you use the shoulder at your own risk.

I'd note that the discussion in question started because a motorist, who admitted to breaking at least two CVC code sections at the time, took offense at the choice made by a cyclist who was operating entirely legally and he now appears to be irate because the law-abiding cyclist didn't appreciate being lectured by the law-breaking motorist.

ColaJacket

So, let's see. When the cyclist is coming down the hill, he's taking the lane. But when he gets to the traffic light, he filters through traffic, so he can be right at the light. That sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Like others have said, I wouldn't want to be dead right.

GH

Homebrew01

I would find nicer roads to ride, with less traffic.

Heathpack 

Wow, I've ridden that exact area of the PCH several times. No way would I take a lane there unless absolutely necessary. Traffic is fast there and people are crazy. I'd swing into the traffic lane if it were clear and I needed to pass another cyclist or to get around debris. If this is the descent right after Pepperdine heading south, I can't recall having ever seen cars parked on that shoulder. Good place to get yourself creamed by a Hummer. I could envision some unlikely scenarios in which I might find myself in a traffic lane right there, so I guess I wouldn't condem the guy without knowing more. But 95% of the time I'd say taking a lane right there is likely to be both foolhardy & obnoxious.

RollCNY

May I ask what the two or more traffic violations might be? I only read the portion of the motorist's letter that is in post #1 , so is there more to the story in the link?

gregf83 

For one he didn't appear to know what the speed limit on that section of road was.

Dunbar

Is it unfair when motorcycles filter up to traffic lights too? Taking the lane and filtering are perfectly legal in CA.

RollCNY

They refer to "the posted 55mph". Is that not the speed limit there, and how would a reader of post #1 know that? I didn't see a speed limit sign in the linked photo.

gregf83 

The speed limit is posted at 45MPH which the OP in the thread wasn't aware of. A reader would need to wade through a few hundred posts in that thread before they'd know that but the OP should have known as he was driving.

RollCNY

Gotcha. I had also wondered where the thread title got 41 mph when it wasn't evident in post 1. So one would have to read the Slow Twitch thread to have the story. This feels like a Law & Order episode where the Homicide cast makes a cameo.

gregf83 

I was bored so I read most of the thread. A friend of the evil lane taking cyclist happened to look at the cyclists ride data and noted that his peak speed down the hill was 41mph. Lots of bickering about whether it's safer to ride in the lane or on the shoulder. Apparently this shoulder is often covered in debris including tree branches further down the hill.

Brian Ratliff

Okay, I'm going to quit trying to read anyone's mind and criticize anyone. Fact is, there was a cyclist taking up a full lane, bombing a hill, and someone got pissed. Remember folks. The roads only work because everyone wants them to work. It's just paint and a rule book and a bunch of people who don't want to collide with each other that keeps our roads working the way they do. Traffic accidents are unbelievable low considering the sheer volume of drivers and the sheer paucity of measures keeping them from colliding with each other.

Sometimes as cyclists, we have to do things to control others around us and use their unwillingness to hit us to our advantage. It's a thin line. Don't piss people off unless there is an immediate need for it. The only reason we can "take a lane" and hold cars back is because the drivers around us are unwilling to hit us. Never forget that. When we take a lane, it's an emotional appeal from us to the drivers around us to give us space. We are communicating that we need the space and, many time, we are not only communicating, we are forcing their hand. We are saying: "I'm going to be here and it's your choice to hit me or not, but please don't hit me". That communication, just like any other communication, can be in kindness or it can be rude. Too much rudeness and the social contract that allows us to get along on the roads breaks down.

People who are into "vehicular cycling" or other types of cycling advocacy have this view that the road is held together with laws and enforcement. This is blatantly untrue. Most the people on the road only know half the formal laws of the road. Half the cops don't even know the full lawbook. And enforcement? I go hundreds of miles driving between cop sightings. There is essentially no active enforcement of the laws of the road, and even when there is, it is not so much laws which are enforced, but peoples' behaviors. The road is held together by a social contract. It's people doing what they were taught when they were teenagers and looking to stay out of trouble and not hit things with their cars. With that comes a lot of unspoken rules. As cyclists, but also even as drivers, you are far better off learning and adhering to the social contract and the unspoken rules of the masses than going cross-current and carrying around a lawbook.

Anyway, enough of this. This is not A&S. I'll relinquish the soapbox.

eyewannabike

First thing, I'm going to call BS on the picture of the lane in question. The post you quoted mentioned that lane, the main north south road going up the beach areas south of LA as being in the morning rush hour. That picture makes it seem like that road is empty.

You're not able to travel the prevailing speed, so you should be in the shoulder. If the debris on the shoulder causes you issues at high speed, then you should go slower. Riding on a 4 lane highway in the middle of the morning rush is not intelligent.

Long Tom

A shoulder is not a bike lane. It can be used as one, sometimes, but the thing is, you just cannot count on a shoulder the way you can a bike lane. In my AO, the shoulder can go from being a de facto bike lane to nonexistent in a blink. That puts a cyclist riding the shoulder in a dangerous spot; now they are swinging out into car traffic that THINKS the cyclist is in a "lane". In addition, shoulders are not marked, maintained, or legally protected as a bike lane. For these reasons I use the shoulder when it it is the safest thing to do, but otherwise, I do what's safest for me at that given time and place. . It's up to me to decide by oregon law. I use that discretion.

All that said- I haven't met a shoulder I'd ride at 41 mph. That's fast on a bicycle. Take the lane and focus on piloting my vehicle safely is the plan then. And a big grin.

RollCNY

Nice post, Brian.

I remember reading a post (I think by wphamilton) a while back that one can never have or take "right of way". The only thing you can do with it is yield it. I was impressed by the concept.