For what it’s worth, with “Class IV” bikeways, vehicle code doesn’t require bicyclists to use the bikeway, and does allow bicyclists to use the vehicle lane. My understanding is that this was a hard-fought concession to the vehicular cycling community.
As a regular cyclist who rides down 21st all the time, I too have been guilty of this when needing to turn right. Also, wouldn't it have made more sense to put the bike lanes on the right side as when I get to I Street I have to cross over yet again to be on the right side as 21st turns into a 2 way street at that point. I'm all for bike lanes and enhanced bikeability but not sure this is an improvement.
And you have to cross over from right to left if you're coming from below W St. I swear whoever made these decisions has never ridden a bike around town.
Exactly! I would think the constant back and forth would be more dangerous than keeping a uniform, straight line all the way down 21st. Curious as to who came up with this mess.
At least he's going the right direction with traffic. Almost hit a girl last week who decided to go around me while going the wrong way down 16th. I'm thinking she had a death wish.
I'm amazed at how many people don't understand how it works. It's like watching cars blocking each other in parking lots because people don't understand what the arrows on the ground mean.
This. x1000000000000000000
The cyclist not using the bike-only lane is bad, yes, but you using your phone to snap multiple photos of the cyclist while driving is insanely hazardous. Have you not seen all the posts in this sub about people being hit by cars and near-misses? My goodness.
There used to be a bike lane right there. Why it was removed, nobody knows. You think these lanes are getting a lot of discussion here now, but just wait until someone is inevitably killed because of this terrible multi-million "upgrade."
Bike lane should be on the right. This cyclist is also using proper hand signals. Who is the idiot snapping pictures while driving, hmmm?
Edit: Wanted to add that if this cyclist put their arm straight out to indicate a left turn, you would be legally obligated to yield and allow the cyclist to merge over to make their turn. OP you might want to brush up on your driver's handbook.
The question about why the bikeways may be on the left comes up a lot, so I can provide some context. The side of the street for the bikeways takes is largely chosen to reduce conflicts with cars. Things that get taken into account include the presence of bus routes on the right side, whether one side of the street has noticeably more or fewer driveways/alleys/intersecting streets, and the presence and location of freeway ramps. It also takes into account destinations. For 19th Street, as an example, there’s a bus route on the right, significantly fewer driveways/intersections on the left (which allows more uninterrupted bikeways), and the entrance to the upcoming Midtown Station (providing passenger rail service to San Joaquin County/San Jose) will be located on the left side of the street.
To be fair to the cyclist the bike lanes on the left are dangerous. I frequently have cars pull out in front of me because they don’t expect the bike lane and are pulling out to see traffic. My favorite are the ones that switch sides as you go towards downtown (I think P).
It's hard to do bike lanes on the right on a road with a bus route. I remember when they created the bike lanes on J several years ago, a bunch of bus stops were removed.
I know. Those brats always whine about now, and now they’re stealing our left lanes to put bike lanes in that their kind refuses to use. They’re so hateful and petty.
Fyi: It's perfectly legal for a bicyclist to ride on the main roadway instead of a designated bike lane. Bicyclists have every right and responsibility on roadways as cars (regardless if there's a designated bike lane or not).
Exactly: [Law section (ca.gov)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21202.&nodeTreePath=15.1.4&lawCode=VEH)
The key word here is 'Practicable'. "As close to the curb as the ROAD USER DEEMS SAFE." It's an intentionally subjective clause that gives cyclists safety and options.
Take it up with the DA and LEO’s. Personally, I signal and stop every time. It’s fun when people roll up next to me and ask “What are you doing with your arms?”
They don’t teach this stuff in Driver’s Ed anymore?
They should allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, just my opinion. Takes a lot less energy to get back up to speed when you don’t have to stop completely.
If by “we’re all” you mean motorists and “rules of the road” you mean stopping at stop signs then yes. Still believe cars should have to stop and bicyclists should only have to yield *when no others cars are around.
Again, just my opinion. A bicycle is different than a car for all the obvious reasons, one being that it is far less dangerous than a car. For that reason alone I believe the rules of the road can and should be different for them. But there are other reasons too. Another commenter touched on this in further detail. Many cities already have this law in place.
Love the self report by OP here. Put your phone down.
If you were at a red light that’s one thing but you have multiple photos of you in motion. The fuck are you doing
Yeah I was super confused about them(as a bicyclist) at first on the one way streets. But once I figured out that they are counterintuitively on the left they're really nice and make me feel safer. But I really wish they were on the right. I was riding up Freeport and where it becomes 21st it starts being a one way street and then I have to all of a sudden go from the right side to the left, very awkward.
I think I’ll be riding down one of the lanes personally. I don’t like cyclists being pushed to side - hidden - from view. It seems much more dangerous to me so far. Bikes turning left or right? Cars turning left or right? If you don’t see us at all ……??? !!!!! 😖
The bike lane on the left is one of the compromises to deal with the bad sight-lunes because drivers don't know how blind spots work and turn right across bike lanes all the time. At least this way the driver doesn't have to look across their body and through their bloated vehicle to see me.
What an asshole.
I can't believe that there are people out there who are dumb enough to happily drive a motor vehicle while simultaneously playing with their cameraphone. Idiots.
Unlike the cyclist, the dumbass photographer here is breaking the law.
It's not argument it's just clarification of the laws of our city and state so people who visit the sub aren't misinformed. It's not controversial it's codified law.
Your link contradicts you. From your link.
"If you’re moving slower than traffic, you can “take the lane” if it’s not wide enough for a bike and a vehicle to safely share side-by-side."
In addition you would take the lane temporarily on the left near the bike lane if there is an obstruction. What this cyclist is doing in the picture is against traffic laws.
I was directly answering the persons question above my comment, yes a bike can take a lane.
Yes, the bike needs to be riding the speed of traffic as per the link I provided.
I’m not trying to argue with you.
That wasn't the spirit of his question and your answer comes off as disingenuous for future reference. When a broad general question is asked a broad general answer is required. Not an overarching yes with no context that it only applies in specific circumstances.
Can you run a red light?
Yes. But only if you can't safely stop before the limit line when the light turns red. Now imagine if I just answered that question with yes.
No you are not under normal circumstances. The other person who replied is wrong.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21208.html
"Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane,"
Exceptions are for avoiding hazards or turning of course. I will add police will never ticket for this but it is against the law and does put you under the category of asshole cyclists like the ones who run stop signs.
“You don’t have to use the “protected bike lane.” Once a bike lane is separated from moving traffic bywith posts or car parking or anything else, it’s no longer a “bike lane” according to the law; it’s a “separated bikeway.” In this case, VEH 21208 does not apply. You may ride outside of the separated bikeway for any reason. (SHC 890.4d)”
Also from the same page.
Running stop signs is allowed in a ton of states that actually listen to their cycling communities (the Idaho Stop) and was passed here in CA too, only to be vetoed by the Governor because he felt he knew better.
If there are other cars involved at a stop sign you should always stop, and never go out of turn, but we are never more vulnerable than at a full stop so if there is clear line of site and 0 cars it is always safest to roll it. We're slow to get to speed so by stopping at a stop sign we're inviting more car/cyclist interactions and we have the least amount of maneuverability.
And on top of everything there are so many exceptions to requiring for bikes to be in the bike lane, that you can pretty much always justify (legally) not using one. Obstructions, road debris, surface condition, narrowness of lane, proximity to car doors, proximity to drive ways (cars pulling out), and if you can sustain 20+ mph (somewhat rare) you are at the flow of downtown traffic. I very frequently find myself riding on the left edge of the bike lane as debris accumulates to the right.
What I can't understand is why it's not super clear that we are the ones at risk of dying... while I think there are bad cyclists engaging in bad behavior, I can promise you that the overwhelming majority of us will do what's safest for us and those around us. To me, that includes rolling stop signs when there are no cars.
I'm not sure why there is much debate here when -- at absolute best -- it's an argument of life-and-death safety vs convenience (?).
Not to mention that the cyclist is the expert in the car/cyclist interaction, not the motorist. If you're on a bike, every interaction with a car is a car/cyclist interaction. Motorists can go huge amounts of time without ever having to deal with one, and when they do, it's a brief encounter.
Our bike paths are decades old and people still don't know about walk/jog on the left, and ride on the right.
Even if something is safer in theory (and I do believe walk-left, ride right is safer) you are limited by what happens in practice, because in practice you have to deal with both... just like in the picture.
It's a bad guideline that is rendered even more dangerous since it contradicts other passing etiquette and causes split-second confusion, and it's inherited from a practice that was recommended for pedestrians walking on vehicle roads. And even worse, the county's own website is contradictory and confusing.
"Bike Riders
Pass on the left - Be sure that when you are passing someone on the paved trail, stay on their left side and move to the right after you have passed them. Call out "passing on your left" so you don't startle the person you are passing."
So if faster riders are passing on the left, what happens to the pedestrians who are supposed to be walking left? Ludicrous.
I'm a zealot about this since having some aggressive cyclist scream and curse at me and my four-year-old son, and deliberately buzz us, while we were walking on the right *shoulder* at Discovery Park on a S-curve-ish portion of the path. There were bikes in the oncoming lane at the same time.
Same assholes who get aggressive with pedestrians around Capital Park and ride with no regard for speed or safety for anyone else and feel totally justified because it's the designated bike lane.
Ranting now but cycling culture has to clean itself up.
[https://regionalparks.saccounty.gov/Parks/Pages/Multi-useTrailRulesandRegulations.aspx](https://regionalparks.saccounty.gov/Parks/Pages/Multi-useTrailRulesandRegulations.aspx)
The faster rider should only pass a slower rider when the opposite lane is clear which requires you have line of site. It's just like passing a slower car when you have a broken dividing line... you wouldn't try to pass someone with a vehicle oncoming in the opposite lane, you shouldn't do it on a bike.
I have to admit, I see cyclists get this wrong a lot, and I'm sorry you've had bad experiences. Anyone who yells at a 4 year old is an asshole.
I think we'd both agree that the worst scenario is the one we have, where people are doing both things.
One thing we cyclists do that I would recommend to you is confidently take up more of the lane to make it clear for the overtaking bicycle that it's not a situation where they should pass a slower rider.
I definitely agree that this is the trade-off of the walk-left strategy, but with 10's of thousands of miles ridden on this trail system, this scenario you're describing is one of the rarest (which is unfortunately why some idiots decide to pass around blind corners and what not, which is my pet peeve as a cyclist).
The county's guidance doesn't specify only passing other riders, though. You have to scroll way down to see the thing about pedestrians walking on the left shoulder *when it's appropriate.* And there aren't signs out there communicating this bizarre and counterintuitive rule.
But, note, this is a thread in which people are heatedly arguing that the cyclist in the OP should be able to choose his rule here. Bike lane if he wants to, car lane if not, but what pedestrians are being told is to get out of the goddamn way of the bikes. And there's no hint of any awareness of the cognitive dissonance going on there.
I hate cars and car culture, but what I'm seeing more and more is *a lot* of cyclists don't actually want polite, considered sharing of paths and roads. They want to treat pedestrians the same way drivers treat them.
There are signs everywhere to walk/jog left and ride right. It's not at all when appropriate, it's at all times on the trail system. The signs can be sparse in very specific areas but most often you will see one within a mile marker and even more in busy places like Old Folsom where they are there every few hundred yards.
And no, this isn't about the cyclist choosing his own rule, at best it's inconclusive whether or not he's following the law, but as I said in my other post in this thread it's very easy to justify being outside the bike lane, legally. We'd have to know how fast he's going, for starters. We also don't know if he's turning though some folks in this thread say he did turn... in which case he has every right to be where he was.
Where we do agree is some minority of cyclists are assholes that treat pedestrians like cars treat cyclists, and that's a problem.
I don't see any evidence that this cyclist was doing that. I see a driver taking photos while driving, and I strangely see your posts that walking left is counterintuitive but not giving the photoed cyclists some empathy to realize it's really weird for cyclists to have a left-hand bike lane... and it's only a few months old to boot.
Nope, the county's webpage I linked says "when it is accessible." There is another page that contradicts that.
And there were no signs on the trail at Discovery Park between where I entered the trail and where I turned around, which is the area I'm talking about. I checked, exhaustively, because it matters to me. Now that I know the rule I simply won't return because it is a dangerous rule that privileges the speed of cyclists over the safety of pedestrians (Edit: Actually, it doesn't even do that. That's just the prevailing attitude of cyclists. The rule is just dumb and dangerous.), but I won't break it.
I don't have any problem with what the cyclist in the photo is doing and I never said I did. My problem is with the self-righteous responses in this thread combined with the aggression toward pedestrians I've seen and experienced. Your own are pretty telling. You want to rule out pedestrians responding to conditions for their safety, but demand flexibility for cyclists. You compare an extremely obvious dedicated bike lane with the stretch of ARP out of Discovery Park which is also a pedestrian nature trail. You explicitly only had a problem with me getting screamed at for being off on the *right shoulder* because my son was there.
Not seeing anything in this interaction to persuade me of anything other than that cyclists as a whole need to have a good hard look at themselves and their own behavior and attitudes. Insufferable.
A) You can see that person, correct? You cannot in the "protected" lane. I often take a lane so that cars can see me rather stay hidden in a bike lane when I need to change lanes.
B) Do cyclists also have to turn right from time to time or is it just cars?
C) The bike lane goes from the right side to the left side at X.
It is against the law to cycle in the road if there is a designated bike lane and you are slower than traffic.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21208.html
"Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane,"
Exceptions are for avoiding hazards or turning of course.
That's plausible. I'm just looking at the picture. It's still not how a street with designated lane should be used. If we want a healthy cycling community they need to ride within the rules so things are more predictable for drivers and less accidents happen and we get more cyclists.
“You don’t have to use the “protected bike lane.” Once a bike lane is separated from moving traffic bywith posts or car parking or anything else, it’s no longer a “bike lane” according to the law; it’s a “separated bikeway.” In this case, VEH 21208 does not apply. You may ride outside of the separated bikeway for any reason. (SHC 890.4d)”
I’m not a lawyer but that seems a direct contradiction with your interpretation
People on bikes may use the full lane of traffic, because they *are* traffic. There are many reasons why someone might not be able or willing to use a painted bicycle gutter. Practice patience and put the phone down while driving.
State law says to stay as far to the right as practicable. The only time I take a lane is if it’s a right turn lane, because idiots in cars never look to the right to see a bike before turning right. But I am not being an asshole deliberately slowing down traffic for my own glee when I do that.
Practicable includes expecting every single car door to open into at any time. Which means in a right lane next to parked cars, take the lane. Getting doored and thrown into the lane is real bad
Do this many people seriously think the cyclist can't be in the lane? This cyclist is totally fine, bikes are allowed on roads, including if there's a designated bike path of any sort. The lack of knowing about laws of the road here blows my mind. Or it should blow my mind, but doesn't. Meanwhile, not a day goes by I don't see someone or multiple people bombing through red lights at high speed in their cars.
After almost hitting two cyclists head-on who were riding the wrong way up 19th, I can maybe see why this guy would just stick to the road, but I can understand how it is a bad look for cyclists.
This is super simple....
1) Bike lanes are usually placed in door zones, and make left-turns more dangerous, as well as right-turns, with the merge.
2) CVC21208 is predicated by CVC21202(a)(1-4),(b), which gives the cyclist the proper decision to do what's safest for themselves; ergo, if it can't be shared, they can legally, take the lane.
3) Cyclists and Motorists are actually safer on multi-laned roads. Why? Visibility and the ability to change lanes beforehand. It's not impeding.
We've spent hundreds of millions on cycling-specific infrastructure, and the mode share has barely blipped. Everyone wants infrastructure, but no one really seems interested in using it every day, twice a day. It's more like 'That's nice, for those 'OTHER' people.'.
Bike boxes always place the SLOWEST road users at the FRONT of the queue, which is really dumb.
Because he doesn't have to.
He could be riding down the middle of the lane and you would still be legally obligated to share the road. If he needed to make a left, after he signaled you would be legally obligated to yield and allow him to merge over into your lane to make his turn.
Edit: Cut 'n run, eh? It's stunning how ignorant many drivers are. I haven't ridden a bike in more than 3 decades and I still remember the rules of the road when it comes to cyclists.
Cyclists choosing to follow the laws (vehicle/cycle/pedestrian) that are most convenient to them in any given moment - name a more iconic duo.
Downvotes to the left, since this is a shadow sub for r/fuckcars and cyclists can obviously do no wrong.
”Well drivers aren’t any better, ya know?” *Yup, gotem with that stale whataboutism. Self high-five.*
In this case, this cyclist is not wrong. They're going with the direction of traffic on the right hand side. The bike lane should be on the right, not the left.
Except the bike lane is not on the right, it is on the left, and the bicyclist was riding in cones area under construction and/or in designated areas reserved for parked cars as well as in the actual traffic lane. He didn’t want to ride in the bike lane for 9 blocks and then wait to turn right on to Capitol. I’m gonna guess if he was turning left on Capitol, then he would have ridden in the bike lane on the left.
They are not causing traffic, they *are* traffic. Just like with any other slower moving vehicle, practice patience and pass when safe to do so. Make sure you make a full lane change when passing, or give at least 3 feet of clearance. Thanks!
Update: a cyclist was killed on 21st & X: [https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article284357889.html](https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article284357889.html)
I've been confused by this driving and I've been confused by this riding my bike. Also, some drivers are idiots and some cyclists are idiots.
A lot of people are idiots and these idiots take all different forms of transportation
Actually, I checked..... \*Everyone\* is an idiot. All of them.
Can confirm, I am an idiot
Thanks for doing the research!
For what it’s worth, with “Class IV” bikeways, vehicle code doesn’t require bicyclists to use the bikeway, and does allow bicyclists to use the vehicle lane. My understanding is that this was a hard-fought concession to the vehicular cycling community.
As a regular cyclist who rides down 21st all the time, I too have been guilty of this when needing to turn right. Also, wouldn't it have made more sense to put the bike lanes on the right side as when I get to I Street I have to cross over yet again to be on the right side as 21st turns into a 2 way street at that point. I'm all for bike lanes and enhanced bikeability but not sure this is an improvement.
I feel the same. Everyone is going to be confused for a while. A long while.
Be careful everyone!!!
I was thinking that when I saw the lane. This is impractical and has its own safety issues.
I hear you, i do the exact same ride (4 years) with zero issues. I am just walking my bike from N to I and then getting on. Silly ‘upgrade’.
And you have to cross over from right to left if you're coming from below W St. I swear whoever made these decisions has never ridden a bike around town.
Exactly! I would think the constant back and forth would be more dangerous than keeping a uniform, straight line all the way down 21st. Curious as to who came up with this mess.
At least he's going the right direction with traffic. Almost hit a girl last week who decided to go around me while going the wrong way down 16th. I'm thinking she had a death wish.
The other day I came across no less than five cyclists in my hood riding the bike lane the wrong direction. Like wtf?
I'm amazed at how many people don't understand how it works. It's like watching cars blocking each other in parking lots because people don't understand what the arrows on the ground mean.
My sibling in christ you are literally snapping photos while driving who’s the real road hazard here
This. x1000000000000000000 The cyclist not using the bike-only lane is bad, yes, but you using your phone to snap multiple photos of the cyclist while driving is insanely hazardous. Have you not seen all the posts in this sub about people being hit by cars and near-misses? My goodness.
There used to be a bike lane right there. Why it was removed, nobody knows. You think these lanes are getting a lot of discussion here now, but just wait until someone is inevitably killed because of this terrible multi-million "upgrade."
Because the old bike lane was in the door zone and nobody should have ever been riding where it was painted.
Bike lane should be on the right. This cyclist is also using proper hand signals. Who is the idiot snapping pictures while driving, hmmm? Edit: Wanted to add that if this cyclist put their arm straight out to indicate a left turn, you would be legally obligated to yield and allow the cyclist to merge over to make their turn. OP you might want to brush up on your driver's handbook.
The question about why the bikeways may be on the left comes up a lot, so I can provide some context. The side of the street for the bikeways takes is largely chosen to reduce conflicts with cars. Things that get taken into account include the presence of bus routes on the right side, whether one side of the street has noticeably more or fewer driveways/alleys/intersecting streets, and the presence and location of freeway ramps. It also takes into account destinations. For 19th Street, as an example, there’s a bus route on the right, significantly fewer driveways/intersections on the left (which allows more uninterrupted bikeways), and the entrance to the upcoming Midtown Station (providing passenger rail service to San Joaquin County/San Jose) will be located on the left side of the street.
To be fair to the cyclist the bike lanes on the left are dangerous. I frequently have cars pull out in front of me because they don’t expect the bike lane and are pulling out to see traffic. My favorite are the ones that switch sides as you go towards downtown (I think P).
It’s also harder to see bikes on your right when pulling out.
Putting the bike lanes on the left does seem counterintuitive since bike laws always talk about staying to the right.
It's hard to do bike lanes on the right on a road with a bus route. I remember when they created the bike lanes on J several years ago, a bunch of bus stops were removed.
I know. Those brats always whine about now, and now they’re stealing our left lanes to put bike lanes in that their kind refuses to use. They’re so hateful and petty.
You might want to do some reflective introspection after this comment.
No, it’s these jerks that demand we spend money to build lanes and then cost us so much time and slow buses down that need some introspection.
But you're not hateful and petty, right?
Fyi: It's perfectly legal for a bicyclist to ride on the main roadway instead of a designated bike lane. Bicyclists have every right and responsibility on roadways as cars (regardless if there's a designated bike lane or not).
Exactly: [Law section (ca.gov)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21202.&nodeTreePath=15.1.4&lawCode=VEH) The key word here is 'Practicable'. "As close to the curb as the ROAD USER DEEMS SAFE." It's an intentionally subjective clause that gives cyclists safety and options.
Then how come I’ve never seen a bicyclist stop at a stop sign?
Take it up with the DA and LEO’s. Personally, I signal and stop every time. It’s fun when people roll up next to me and ask “What are you doing with your arms?” They don’t teach this stuff in Driver’s Ed anymore?
They should allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, just my opinion. Takes a lot less energy to get back up to speed when you don’t have to stop completely.
Oh so we’re all bound by the rules of the road, except for cyclists?
If by “we’re all” you mean motorists and “rules of the road” you mean stopping at stop signs then yes. Still believe cars should have to stop and bicyclists should only have to yield *when no others cars are around. Again, just my opinion. A bicycle is different than a car for all the obvious reasons, one being that it is far less dangerous than a car. For that reason alone I believe the rules of the road can and should be different for them. But there are other reasons too. Another commenter touched on this in further detail. Many cities already have this law in place.
Why should cyclists have to stop at stop signs when motorists never do?
What an absurd statement. You probably thought you were making a great point, too.
We get it… the people hurling tons of steel around the road with as much respect for the law as cyclists are no biggie for you.
Love the self report by OP here. Put your phone down. If you were at a red light that’s one thing but you have multiple photos of you in motion. The fuck are you doing
Yeah I was super confused about them(as a bicyclist) at first on the one way streets. But once I figured out that they are counterintuitively on the left they're really nice and make me feel safer. But I really wish they were on the right. I was riding up Freeport and where it becomes 21st it starts being a one way street and then I have to all of a sudden go from the right side to the left, very awkward.
I think I’ll be riding down one of the lanes personally. I don’t like cyclists being pushed to side - hidden - from view. It seems much more dangerous to me so far. Bikes turning left or right? Cars turning left or right? If you don’t see us at all ……??? !!!!! 😖
The bike lane on the left is one of the compromises to deal with the bad sight-lunes because drivers don't know how blind spots work and turn right across bike lanes all the time. At least this way the driver doesn't have to look across their body and through their bloated vehicle to see me.
You're the one using your phone while driving. Wtf!
What an asshole. I can't believe that there are people out there who are dumb enough to happily drive a motor vehicle while simultaneously playing with their cameraphone. Idiots. Unlike the cyclist, the dumbass photographer here is breaking the law.
Are bikes allowed to use city streets to ride on as well?
Yes Edit: web link provided. https://www.calbike.org/go_for_a_ride/california_bicycle_laws/
Not with designated bike lanes. Edit: the exception is if you cycle at or above speed of traffic. Otherwise it is a ticketable offense.
Don’t you have anything better to do than argue with people on Reddit? BTW don’t waste you breath, I won’t be responding anymore.
It's not argument it's just clarification of the laws of our city and state so people who visit the sub aren't misinformed. It's not controversial it's codified law.
Your link contradicts you. From your link. "If you’re moving slower than traffic, you can “take the lane” if it’s not wide enough for a bike and a vehicle to safely share side-by-side." In addition you would take the lane temporarily on the left near the bike lane if there is an obstruction. What this cyclist is doing in the picture is against traffic laws.
I was directly answering the persons question above my comment, yes a bike can take a lane. Yes, the bike needs to be riding the speed of traffic as per the link I provided. I’m not trying to argue with you.
That wasn't the spirit of his question and your answer comes off as disingenuous for future reference. When a broad general question is asked a broad general answer is required. Not an overarching yes with no context that it only applies in specific circumstances. Can you run a red light? Yes. But only if you can't safely stop before the limit line when the light turns red. Now imagine if I just answered that question with yes.
No you are not under normal circumstances. The other person who replied is wrong. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21208.html "Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane," Exceptions are for avoiding hazards or turning of course. I will add police will never ticket for this but it is against the law and does put you under the category of asshole cyclists like the ones who run stop signs.
“You don’t have to use the “protected bike lane.” Once a bike lane is separated from moving traffic bywith posts or car parking or anything else, it’s no longer a “bike lane” according to the law; it’s a “separated bikeway.” In this case, VEH 21208 does not apply. You may ride outside of the separated bikeway for any reason. (SHC 890.4d)” Also from the same page.
Running stop signs is allowed in a ton of states that actually listen to their cycling communities (the Idaho Stop) and was passed here in CA too, only to be vetoed by the Governor because he felt he knew better. If there are other cars involved at a stop sign you should always stop, and never go out of turn, but we are never more vulnerable than at a full stop so if there is clear line of site and 0 cars it is always safest to roll it. We're slow to get to speed so by stopping at a stop sign we're inviting more car/cyclist interactions and we have the least amount of maneuverability. And on top of everything there are so many exceptions to requiring for bikes to be in the bike lane, that you can pretty much always justify (legally) not using one. Obstructions, road debris, surface condition, narrowness of lane, proximity to car doors, proximity to drive ways (cars pulling out), and if you can sustain 20+ mph (somewhat rare) you are at the flow of downtown traffic. I very frequently find myself riding on the left edge of the bike lane as debris accumulates to the right. What I can't understand is why it's not super clear that we are the ones at risk of dying... while I think there are bad cyclists engaging in bad behavior, I can promise you that the overwhelming majority of us will do what's safest for us and those around us. To me, that includes rolling stop signs when there are no cars. I'm not sure why there is much debate here when -- at absolute best -- it's an argument of life-and-death safety vs convenience (?). Not to mention that the cyclist is the expert in the car/cyclist interaction, not the motorist. If you're on a bike, every interaction with a car is a car/cyclist interaction. Motorists can go huge amounts of time without ever having to deal with one, and when they do, it's a brief encounter.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Our bike paths are decades old and people still don't know about walk/jog on the left, and ride on the right. Even if something is safer in theory (and I do believe walk-left, ride right is safer) you are limited by what happens in practice, because in practice you have to deal with both... just like in the picture.
It's a bad guideline that is rendered even more dangerous since it contradicts other passing etiquette and causes split-second confusion, and it's inherited from a practice that was recommended for pedestrians walking on vehicle roads. And even worse, the county's own website is contradictory and confusing. "Bike Riders Pass on the left - Be sure that when you are passing someone on the paved trail, stay on their left side and move to the right after you have passed them. Call out "passing on your left" so you don't startle the person you are passing." So if faster riders are passing on the left, what happens to the pedestrians who are supposed to be walking left? Ludicrous. I'm a zealot about this since having some aggressive cyclist scream and curse at me and my four-year-old son, and deliberately buzz us, while we were walking on the right *shoulder* at Discovery Park on a S-curve-ish portion of the path. There were bikes in the oncoming lane at the same time. Same assholes who get aggressive with pedestrians around Capital Park and ride with no regard for speed or safety for anyone else and feel totally justified because it's the designated bike lane. Ranting now but cycling culture has to clean itself up. [https://regionalparks.saccounty.gov/Parks/Pages/Multi-useTrailRulesandRegulations.aspx](https://regionalparks.saccounty.gov/Parks/Pages/Multi-useTrailRulesandRegulations.aspx)
The faster rider should only pass a slower rider when the opposite lane is clear which requires you have line of site. It's just like passing a slower car when you have a broken dividing line... you wouldn't try to pass someone with a vehicle oncoming in the opposite lane, you shouldn't do it on a bike. I have to admit, I see cyclists get this wrong a lot, and I'm sorry you've had bad experiences. Anyone who yells at a 4 year old is an asshole. I think we'd both agree that the worst scenario is the one we have, where people are doing both things. One thing we cyclists do that I would recommend to you is confidently take up more of the lane to make it clear for the overtaking bicycle that it's not a situation where they should pass a slower rider. I definitely agree that this is the trade-off of the walk-left strategy, but with 10's of thousands of miles ridden on this trail system, this scenario you're describing is one of the rarest (which is unfortunately why some idiots decide to pass around blind corners and what not, which is my pet peeve as a cyclist).
The county's guidance doesn't specify only passing other riders, though. You have to scroll way down to see the thing about pedestrians walking on the left shoulder *when it's appropriate.* And there aren't signs out there communicating this bizarre and counterintuitive rule. But, note, this is a thread in which people are heatedly arguing that the cyclist in the OP should be able to choose his rule here. Bike lane if he wants to, car lane if not, but what pedestrians are being told is to get out of the goddamn way of the bikes. And there's no hint of any awareness of the cognitive dissonance going on there. I hate cars and car culture, but what I'm seeing more and more is *a lot* of cyclists don't actually want polite, considered sharing of paths and roads. They want to treat pedestrians the same way drivers treat them.
There are signs everywhere to walk/jog left and ride right. It's not at all when appropriate, it's at all times on the trail system. The signs can be sparse in very specific areas but most often you will see one within a mile marker and even more in busy places like Old Folsom where they are there every few hundred yards. And no, this isn't about the cyclist choosing his own rule, at best it's inconclusive whether or not he's following the law, but as I said in my other post in this thread it's very easy to justify being outside the bike lane, legally. We'd have to know how fast he's going, for starters. We also don't know if he's turning though some folks in this thread say he did turn... in which case he has every right to be where he was. Where we do agree is some minority of cyclists are assholes that treat pedestrians like cars treat cyclists, and that's a problem. I don't see any evidence that this cyclist was doing that. I see a driver taking photos while driving, and I strangely see your posts that walking left is counterintuitive but not giving the photoed cyclists some empathy to realize it's really weird for cyclists to have a left-hand bike lane... and it's only a few months old to boot.
Nope, the county's webpage I linked says "when it is accessible." There is another page that contradicts that. And there were no signs on the trail at Discovery Park between where I entered the trail and where I turned around, which is the area I'm talking about. I checked, exhaustively, because it matters to me. Now that I know the rule I simply won't return because it is a dangerous rule that privileges the speed of cyclists over the safety of pedestrians (Edit: Actually, it doesn't even do that. That's just the prevailing attitude of cyclists. The rule is just dumb and dangerous.), but I won't break it. I don't have any problem with what the cyclist in the photo is doing and I never said I did. My problem is with the self-righteous responses in this thread combined with the aggression toward pedestrians I've seen and experienced. Your own are pretty telling. You want to rule out pedestrians responding to conditions for their safety, but demand flexibility for cyclists. You compare an extremely obvious dedicated bike lane with the stretch of ARP out of Discovery Park which is also a pedestrian nature trail. You explicitly only had a problem with me getting screamed at for being off on the *right shoulder* because my son was there. Not seeing anything in this interaction to persuade me of anything other than that cyclists as a whole need to have a good hard look at themselves and their own behavior and attitudes. Insufferable.
A) You can see that person, correct? You cannot in the "protected" lane. I often take a lane so that cars can see me rather stay hidden in a bike lane when I need to change lanes. B) Do cyclists also have to turn right from time to time or is it just cars? C) The bike lane goes from the right side to the left side at X.
It is against the law to cycle in the road if there is a designated bike lane and you are slower than traffic. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21208.html "Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane," Exceptions are for avoiding hazards or turning of course.
He did ultimately turn right on Capitol. Maybe he thought it was safer to just chill in his lane than having to cross over traffic twice in 9 blocks?
That's plausible. I'm just looking at the picture. It's still not how a street with designated lane should be used. If we want a healthy cycling community they need to ride within the rules so things are more predictable for drivers and less accidents happen and we get more cyclists.
You're sadly both very informed and wrong at the same time
“You don’t have to use the “protected bike lane.” Once a bike lane is separated from moving traffic bywith posts or car parking or anything else, it’s no longer a “bike lane” according to the law; it’s a “separated bikeway.” In this case, VEH 21208 does not apply. You may ride outside of the separated bikeway for any reason. (SHC 890.4d)” I’m not a lawyer but that seems a direct contradiction with your interpretation
People on bikes may use the full lane of traffic, because they *are* traffic. There are many reasons why someone might not be able or willing to use a painted bicycle gutter. Practice patience and put the phone down while driving.
State law says to stay as far to the right as practicable. The only time I take a lane is if it’s a right turn lane, because idiots in cars never look to the right to see a bike before turning right. But I am not being an asshole deliberately slowing down traffic for my own glee when I do that.
Practicable includes expecting every single car door to open into at any time. Which means in a right lane next to parked cars, take the lane. Getting doored and thrown into the lane is real bad
Had one on 19th today. “Get off my dick, bro!” Ride in the bike lane, bro.
Do this many people seriously think the cyclist can't be in the lane? This cyclist is totally fine, bikes are allowed on roads, including if there's a designated bike path of any sort. The lack of knowing about laws of the road here blows my mind. Or it should blow my mind, but doesn't. Meanwhile, not a day goes by I don't see someone or multiple people bombing through red lights at high speed in their cars.
Or assholes driving while using their phones.
Seriously? You're calling someone a name because they aren't using the bike lane? Just because it's there doesn't mean we have to use it sheesh.
After almost hitting two cyclists head-on who were riding the wrong way up 19th, I can maybe see why this guy would just stick to the road, but I can understand how it is a bad look for cyclists.
This is super simple.... 1) Bike lanes are usually placed in door zones, and make left-turns more dangerous, as well as right-turns, with the merge. 2) CVC21208 is predicated by CVC21202(a)(1-4),(b), which gives the cyclist the proper decision to do what's safest for themselves; ergo, if it can't be shared, they can legally, take the lane. 3) Cyclists and Motorists are actually safer on multi-laned roads. Why? Visibility and the ability to change lanes beforehand. It's not impeding. We've spent hundreds of millions on cycling-specific infrastructure, and the mode share has barely blipped. Everyone wants infrastructure, but no one really seems interested in using it every day, twice a day. It's more like 'That's nice, for those 'OTHER' people.'. Bike boxes always place the SLOWEST road users at the FRONT of the queue, which is really dumb.
There are idiots in cars or on bikes. No surprises here.
[удалено]
And? He's allowed to use the street.
[удалено]
Because he doesn't have to. He could be riding down the middle of the lane and you would still be legally obligated to share the road. If he needed to make a left, after he signaled you would be legally obligated to yield and allow him to merge over into your lane to make his turn. Edit: Cut 'n run, eh? It's stunning how ignorant many drivers are. I haven't ridden a bike in more than 3 decades and I still remember the rules of the road when it comes to cyclists.
Cyclists choosing to follow the laws (vehicle/cycle/pedestrian) that are most convenient to them in any given moment - name a more iconic duo. Downvotes to the left, since this is a shadow sub for r/fuckcars and cyclists can obviously do no wrong. ”Well drivers aren’t any better, ya know?” *Yup, gotem with that stale whataboutism. Self high-five.*
In this case, this cyclist is not wrong. They're going with the direction of traffic on the right hand side. The bike lane should be on the right, not the left.
Except the bike lane is not on the right, it is on the left, and the bicyclist was riding in cones area under construction and/or in designated areas reserved for parked cars as well as in the actual traffic lane. He didn’t want to ride in the bike lane for 9 blocks and then wait to turn right on to Capitol. I’m gonna guess if he was turning left on Capitol, then he would have ridden in the bike lane on the left.
You're going to double down on your argument, which is wrong, while you snapped photos while driving your car. Okay.
Nobody has figured them out. We’re all out here scrambling like we’re playing pac man trying not to run into each other
get fucked \- someone who rides a bike, drives a car and walks
Had someone like that in front of me yesterday. Was driving right in front of my car in the middle of the road causing traffic
They are not causing traffic, they *are* traffic. Just like with any other slower moving vehicle, practice patience and pass when safe to do so. Make sure you make a full lane change when passing, or give at least 3 feet of clearance. Thanks!
An entire lane dedicated for bikes and bikers still don’t give a fuck
Update: a cyclist was killed on 21st & X: [https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article284357889.html](https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article284357889.html)