Comments on: Bicycle ticket could cost Santa Ana student $400

By: Brian DeSousa

Brian DeSousa — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:48:53 +0000

Just my two cents on the original topic, which is from the city neighboring mine. Unless a city has developed its own fine structure for bicycling violations, the default is the same fine schedule as for motor vehicle violations. Also, there is a large immigrant population in the city, and most of the cyclists there ride on the sidewalk, often times in the wrong direction, and often without lights at night. I’ve never heard of any enforcement efforts geared towards these cyclists, who are arguably more of a danger to themselves than the cyclist who was cited in this article.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:57:34 +0000

Here is another one:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091107/ARTICLES/911079944/1033?Title=Tough-to-share-the-road

“So far, the reported confrontations have not escalated in physical attacks, said Santa Rosa police Sgt. Doug Schlief.

“There are absolutely reports of cyclists not moving over — and they are required by law to do that — and of running stop signs and riding on the wrong side of the road,” Schlief said. ”

From the same article is this assertion by the writer:
“It is legal for bicyclists to ride two and three abreast until there is traffic either in front of or behind them. Then the law requires them to ride single file and as close to the right shoulder as practical.”

I can find no such requirement in the California Vehicle Code.

By: Keri

Keri — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:14:04 +0000

There's a lot of stuff like that here, too. It's not helpful that cyclists will ride on any marginal strip of pavement to the right of a fog line. The DOTs know this. They've done studies to prove it. We need to instill some self-respect in cyclists. As long as the majority of cyclists think marginalization is accommodation, this is the kind of justice we can expect.

By: Keri

Keri — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:35:55 +0000

We’ve seen that interpretation before from law enforcement:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2008/05/23/lessons-from-mission-street/

(see the last comment)

By: ChipSeal

ChipSeal — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:26:54 +0000

So, in your interpretation of the prosecutor’s position, “practicable” changes it’s meaning depending on the size of the vehicle that is behind you?

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:03:48 +0000

Except that the car involved was a honda civic. In theory, had she been hugging the double-yellow, even if she didn’t see him, she could have missed him. That’s what the prosecutor thinks.

By: ToddBS

ToddBS — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:01:01 +0000

This is the sort of story that gets my blood boiling. Not paying attention is not paying attention. It doesn’t matter if it’s “momentarily” (that’s the motorist’s description of it anyway – would she really admit it if she had looked away for a full 5 seconds?) or if it’s a minute.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:42:01 +0000

The shoulder on that road is not of consistent width, and someone who lives in the area said that at or near the particular spot where the crash occurred, there is a mailbox projecting partway into the shoulder. In any case, this is not a shoulder that is consistently clear/wide enough to ride in. Anti-cyclist bias is alive and well in Maryland.

It also doesn’t help that Maryland has a mandatory bike lane/shoulder law [cyclists must ride in a bike lane or shoulder if one exists, except to avoid hazards, make turns, etc.] In the vehicle code, no distinction is made between bike lanes and shoulders, and judging from the “bike lanes” that I’ve seen in Maryland, MD traffic engineers [or whoever is responsible for implementing the bike lanes] have no idea how to create a bike lane. The usual method is to simply paint bike lane symbols on shoulders [generally of substandard width]. In fact, if you see a bike lane symbol in Maryland, it generally indicates the part of the road a wise cyclist should best avoid.

By: ChipSeal

ChipSeal — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:41:59 +0000

“It would therefore be inappropriate for a bicycle to commute/travel that far into a designated lane of travel and certainly be classified as one of the primary causes of this collision”

The only cause of this collision was that the motorist steered her automobile into a cyclist in front of her.

Had a police cruiser been stopped in that lane, would Lieutenant Michael Thompson say that the officer who parked it there was at fault had someone steered their automobile into it?

By: Keri

Keri — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:33:38 +0000

"...lane of travel that is 9 feet 7 inches wide." Here's about what that looks like: Imagine riding in a 3 foot shoulder next to that.