Talk:Bicycle law in California/Archive 1

TO DO
I just discovered this article. It's a good start, and I've expanded on it some, but it has a lot of room for improvement. I'll start the TODO list off the top of my head below. Feel free to add to it... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Add a section on 21208 (bike lanes) ✅
 * Under 21200, give examples of laws that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles (like following too closely ✅, and against racing ✅), and those that apply to all drivers (like traveling on the right side, obeying traffic control devices, etc.).
 * Add a subsection under 21200 devoted to the "preparing for a left turn" exception - including explaining how sometimes cyclists have to start merging left more than a block before they reach the turn (find reference for this).
 * Add a subsection under 21202 noting that single-file cycling is not required. ✅.
 * Add a section on equipment requirements, including bike lighting requirements, and explain why motor vehicle requirements (mirrors, turn signals) do not apply to bicyclists.
 * Give meaning of "practicable" in more detail, and explain ramifications better. ✅
 * Add a section on bicyclist helmet requirements (minors)
 * Explain why laws against impeding traffic do not apply to bicyclists who are traveling as fast as they reasonably can (reference Mionske).
 * Add links to this article from other relevant articles.
 * Add definition of a bicycle (device, not vehicle)
 * Add laws requiring adherence to stop signs and traffic signals, showing how they apply to bicyclists. Contrast with Idaho where bicyclists are allowed to treat stops as yields, and red lights as stop signs.
 * Add note contrasting Oregon turning laws and bike lanes with California's.
 * Add law requiring right turners to drive as far right as practicable to right edge, and contrast with 21202 exception for cyclists to move left at places where right turns are allowed.
 * Add law about (hand) turn signals - Isn't this covered already by the section on CVC 22107?
 * Add law about need to yield before changing line of travel - explain how bicyclists following fixed distance from edge line can - rather than fixed distance from center of roadway or lane stripe - can inadvertently change line of travel without properly yielding. Isn't this covered already by the section on CVC 22107?
 * Add law about safe passing. CVC 21750.
 * show cascade of laws/specs that make it so cyclists are required to ride in bike lanes only when they meet the specs, and what the Cali MUTCD specs are. See CVC 21208, CVC 21207, California Streets and Highways Code 891, 2010 California MUTCD 9C.04, Caltrans Highway Design Manual 1003.2.
 * Note that there is no law that requires bicyclists to ride on sidepaths (or "bike lanes" physically separated from the roadway). Note that 21208 only applies to bike lanes established on a roadway, and a lane physically separated from the roadway is not on a roadway.
 * Door zones. Explain why 21202 exception alleviates bicyclists from ever having to ride in door zones, even though motorists are required to check first (cite that law).
 * Compare/contrast shoulders and bike lanes. How do they differ physically? (stripe width, symbols, signs).  What are the legal ramifications?
 * When done, remove construction template
 * rename to Bicycle law in California, per suggestions at Afd. ✅

Please no Afd nominations for now...
Since the recent Afd nomination process resulted in "no consensus", this article could be nominated for deletion again at any time.

I hereby request that such nominations not occur while this article remains under construction, ideally through this summer (of 2009). Hopefully we (or maybe just I?) will be done long before the end of the summer.

In the mean time, constructive criticisms are welcome and encouraged. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues tag - questions
This article has been marked with having the following issues:


 * It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content.
 * Can someone give me a few examples of what they believe to be "instructions, advice, or how-to content" in the article. I was trying to avoid specifically that, but I would like to know what I missed.


 * Is this sentence considered to be of that type: "There are important safety reasons to take advantage of this legal opportunity to safely merge left well out into the vehicular traffic lane [13]."? It's not advice, it is a cited statement consistent with authoritative opinion in this field.


 * There is also this: "traffic cycling experts agree door zones are hazards that are to be avoided, and that riding at least four feet from parked cars is a good practice."
 * Is that advice, or a statement reporting the advice generally given by authorities in the field? I agree it needs a citation, but does it need to be removed?


 * Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
 * It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
 * I'm going to assume these two basically mean to make it more like Bicycle law. If it means something else, please let me know.

This article currently contains 13 quotations. Is that really too many? Please cite the relevant guideline or policy so I know to what this needs to conform.
 * It contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bicycles are devices, not vehicles
CVC 231 and 39000. CVC 21200 does not make bikes vehicles. It says that those riding bicycles must follow the same rules and have the same rights as those driving vehicles. So laws that apply to vehicles without referencing driving should have no application. For example, much of CVC 21113 should not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.68.236 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes by wtmusic
I'm leaning towards reverting most of wtmusic's changes, which can be seen in this diff. But I'll take them one at a time. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

keeping right
Before:

After:

Why be more vague? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I made this change and some others because you've titled the article Bicycle law in California, not "Bicyclists' Rights in California." The distinction is not trivial. Wording in CVC 21202 A. lists prohibitions with exceptions, and you've placed misleading emphasis on exceptions from prohibitions, with possible implications for safety.

--Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure who you're referring to with you, but I didn't title this article. The exceptions are in there for reasons of safety...  de-emphasizing has possible implications for safety.  That's the point.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I thought it was your article. Without getting too far off the subject of Bicycle law in California - there are a number of places in this article where unsafe riding is encouraged. For example, there are claims that racing bicycles on open roads and drafting are legal. In reality, racing is often unsafe, drafting a motor vehicle is unsafe under any situation, and both would probably be ticketed under reckless driving: "23103. (a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving." Taking a lane, in the article as it stood, was argued to be legal (implied: acceptable) in any lane less than 14' wide - even if traffic is whizzing by at 50mph. As a cyclist I'm all for cyclists rights, but this is irresponsible.  --Wtmusic (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that one bicyclist drafting/tailgating another is not illegal, and I've never heard or read bicyclists ever cited for racing under reckless driving or anything else. It's highly unlikely for CVC 23103 to apply to bicyclists since it's the vehicle that creates the danger to others, and bicycles are not legally vehicles.  Bike clubs have been having bike races on the streets of California for years.  Sure the big ones involve police permits and the closing of streets, but many are informal, don't close the street, and are never-the-less legal.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The footnotes also reference "AASHTO’s 1999 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities states (p. 17): "In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane....". I've restored the "in the rare situations" clause, added a citation, and improved the wording.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

21202
Before:

After:

The narrow lane exception alone applies to the majority of roads since most roads have lanes in the 9-12' range (and 14' is the minimum required for safe side-by-side sharing), therefore situations where keeping right is legally required are relatively rare. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The 14' designation for a minimum width of side-by-side sharing is a recommendation from a non-governmental organization, and has no cite from case law. --Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While in most state laws the minimum width for safe sharing is not stated explicitly, in states where it is explicitly stated, like in Texas, it's stated to be 14'. See Texas Sec. 551.103(a)(4)(A). While TX law of course does not set a Binding precedent in CA, it's certainly an important Persuasive precedent; as relevant as just about any other source when trying to quantify this issue.  I don't if we need to add this to the article - I'm just addressing your contention that 14' is only a recommendation from a non-governmental organization.  Besides, the math is pretty straightforward, even assuming typical widths for motor vehicles and minimum buffer space to the road edge and between the cyclist and the vehicle.  There are sources for those calculations that might be worth citing here.    --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

single-file
Before:

After:

Actually, some of this change might be useful, but not the part that makes it seem 21202 requires single-file; there is no basis for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "And yet, the law is nuanced in California—sometimes, cyclists may ride two (or more) abreast, while at other times, they must ride single file." Mionske and others feel 21202 can require single-file, depending on circumstances. Also, the conclusion that these situations are "rare" is unsubstantiated. --Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The original text did state that single-file was implicitly required in some situations, and specified all the conditions that had to be present for that to be true. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

bike lane
Before:

After:

These say the same thing, except the earlier version is more specific, which I think is preferable. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See above post about misleading emphasis. --Wtmusic (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

21208
This section on 21208 was deleted, without explanation:

Why delete that? Since there was no explanation, I've restored it. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Above post about misleading emphasis. (Apologies if my responses are not supposed to be inline, I'm new to editing Wikipedia). - unsigned


 * No worries. This is an unusual situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

More changes by wtmusic
has not responded here yet, but continues making more changes.

21202 A to A
Changing references to subsection (a) of 21202 from "CVC21202(a)" to "CVC 21202 A". Why? Well, I can see the first space, but the paragraph in the law itself is denoted with lowercase a in parentheses; why shouldn't we do that too? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We should, corrected. --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On bicycling side-by-side:
BEFORE:

AFTER:

We really need to have a source arguing this to say it. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Source not necessary (by definition of "assemblage" prima facie from quote). --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Two bicyclists side-by-side constitutes an "assemblage"? What about two motorcyclists side-by-side, or a group of motorcyclists for that matter?  Nothing prima facie about this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In the case of Torrance it would be three or more side by side. Re: legal def of "assemblage", absent a precedent could it not be "more than one"? What's your understanding? --Wtmusic (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "assemblage" implies some kind of formal organizing element. So an official/planned "charity ride" might be regulatable by local authorities, but, as far as I know, the law does not even apply to Critical Mass (famously unorganized and leaderless) rides with hundreds of bicyclists, much less to two or three cyclists who happen to be riding together. We're not supposed to speculate in WP.  Unless we can find a reliable source that speculates about this, it shouldn't be in the article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 21
BEFORE:

AFTER:

Why not follow the source and explain why it's critical? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Needs cite showing "there can be no local laws...prohibiting them from riding two or more abreast." --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On sidewalk cycling...
BEFORE:

AFTER:

If there are no other matters that specifically affect bicyclists, why not point that out? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignores possibility that 21100(a) might affect bicyclists --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also on sidewalk cycling...
BEFORE

AFTER:

Why take out the part that says bicycle traffic on public roads may not be regulated further by local ordinance per this? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignores possibility that 21100(a) might affect bicyclists (I don't know for a fact that it does, but there are municipal laws on the books, riders are being cited, and to my knowledge there haven't been any successful challenges on legal grounds). --Wtmusic (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Practicable
There is a potential problem in this article.

The article makes repeated assertions that the word "practicable" in CVC 21202 means "safe". These assertions are backed up by two references to writings by the same person, one Bob Mionske. I do not see any legal precedents to justify this position.

Unfortunately, this position appears to be false. Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed) defines "practicable" as "that which may be done, practiced, or accomplished; that which is performable, feasible, possible". Safety does not even enter into it! There is an important distinction between "practicable" and "practical". If CVC 21202 were to say, "... shall ride as close as practical", this would have had the meaning that Bob Mionske presents. However, it does not. --Itinerant1 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

this article has major sourcing problems that need to be addressed
I stumbled upon this article, and I noticed that it has a lot of serious problems with WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. While there are a few secondary sources that seem legitimate at first glance, the vast majority of this article simply consists of editors' interpretations of citations of the California Vehicle Code, which is a primary source, not a secondary source. Those portions of the article either need to reference a secondary source or they need to be removed.

For example, the following sections have no source: This is just the first few I noticed, not an exhaustive list.
 * Bicycles, like all other vehicles, must be on the right half of the road
 * Definition of "roadway" does not include shoulder
 * Turning Off for Five or More Following Vehicles
 * Bicyclists are never required to ride in door zones

These parts are just an editor's (some editors'?) interpretation of the various provisions of the CVC and how they interact with each other. Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of synthesis of primary sources, even if the analysis seems obvious. Instead of making the sweeping statement, "Because of the hazard always present in door zones, bicyclists are never required by CVC 21202 or any other law to ride so far right that they could be hit by, or forced to swerve into the adjacent lane, potentially in front of overtaking traffic, by a suddenly opened door of a vehicle" just based on references to CVC 22517 (perhaps as modified by CVC 21202), there needs to be a reference to some biking law expert who published this in a reliable source. So too, even the statement that bicyclists, like everyone else, have to move over if there's 5 people behind them needs a source. What if, for instance, there was some other provision of the CVC that specifically provided that bicyclists were exempt from CVC 21656 [the law that says to move over]? Primary sourcing wouldn't reveal that; hopefully a reliable secondary source would.

I noticed that this article was proposed for deletion three years ago. A plea for additional time was made. Now it's a lot later, and while a select few parts of the article could probably stay, the majority still don't have a legitimate sources. I don't have the time to parse the problematic sources and sections this evening. And I'd like to re-review the afd discussion, also. But unless I'm overlooking something, this article may be looking at a diet in the near future. AgnosticAphid talk 06:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of it is sourced. I'll find more.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Mionske not a reliable source for this topic?
Bob Mionske literally wrote the book, "Bicycling and the Law". Why is his opinion (and that of his associate, Rick Bernardi), as posted on his official website, on these issues not a reliable source for what experts on the issue say about it? They were removed in. this edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)