Looking for information about the GLENDALE HISTORY RIDE? Click here.
I’m frequently asked about the rules of the road for bicyclists and am surprised to discover how little most people know about the California Vehicle Code and what it says about bicyclists. Two recent letters to the Glendale News-Press, one from Zachary Brooks and a response from Jane Leggett, have prompted me to offer some additional commentary. For the purpose of this article, I will be discussing adult bicycle riders only. Children have some special considerations that I will not address here.
First, California Vehicle Code 21200 clearly gives cyclists the right to ride in the roadway. This bit of information is sometimes a surprise to non-cyclists and is important to remember. CVC 21200 means that a cyclist has just as much right to use the street as any motorist behind the wheel of an automobile (except for locations like freeways where bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited). So, on a given street where bicycles are not prohibited, a cyclist has just as much right to roadway access as any motorist.
Second, there are special conditions that apply to cyclists. This is because cyclists usually travel at a speed that is slower than the motorized traffic on the road. This is addressed in CVC 21202 which basically says that a cyclist must ride as far to the right as “practicable”. The word practicable is used intentionally and is quite important. It essentially means that a cyclist must ride as far to right as he/she can, but only to the point that he/she can do it safely. CVC 21202 also addresses the situations when cyclists can ride further to the left in order to remain safe. These situations include avoiding hazardous or dangerous conditions on the road, when passing another cyclist or vehicle moving in the same direction, when turning left, when approaching a right-turn only lane (and the cyclist is going straight), or if the lane is too narrow to share with a motor vehicle. Cyclists can also ride on the left side of a one-way street. This section also comes as a surprise to many non-cyclists (as well as to some cyclists).
So how do these two vehicle code sections relate to the recent News-Press letters? Mr. Brooks’ letter is an appeal to motorists to understand that he has a right to ride in the street and to do so without the fear of injury as a result of motorists’ ignorance or poor motorist behavior. It means that when motorists yell at cyclists like Mr. Brooks to get on the sidewalk or that “you shouldn’t even be on the road,” they are mistaken. In fact, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in California. With regards to sidewalk riding, each city can choose to allow it under certain conditions. In Glendale, it’s illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in a business district, but it is allowed in residential areas. In the City of Los Angeles, bicyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalk as long as they don’t endanger pedestrians. “Allowed” is an important word here. While cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalk in some places, there is nothing in the vehicle code that requires a cyclist to ride on the sidewalk. Riding in the roadway is the default in California while riding on the sidewalk is the exception.
One of many CVC 21202 signs in San Francisco
The other portion of CVC 21202 that Mr. Brooks no doubt had in mind (and that surprise most people) is that a cyclist does not have to ride to the right if the lane is too narrow to share with a motor vehicle. Among cyclists, the practice of riding down the center of a narrow lane is called “taking the lane.” It’s essentially a defensive driving tactic. In fact, it’s a tactic that is taught by the League of American Bicyclists, a national bicycling organization that is the leader in bicycle safety training. Cyclists are instructed that they are safer taking the lane when it’s too narrow so that a motorist will not attempt to pass and potentially clip the cyclist or force him/her off the road (or into a parked vehicle, a sign, a telephone pole, etc.). When a cyclist takes the lane, it usually means a short delay for the motorist (assuming the narrow lane section is not long) or that the motorist simply changes lanes (or merges left) to pass the cyclist. This doesn’t sit well with some motorists who seem to feel they have priority on the road and that cyclists should get out of the way at all times. Many cyclists can tell stories of incidents when they were yelled at by motorists for taking the lane. To an experienced cyclist, this is just like being told to get off the road. Of course, cyclists must be wise about when they take the lane. The phrase “too narrow” is not clearly defined and this is one situation in which a cyclist can find him/herself debating the issue with a police officer or judge. Mr. Brooks seems to have encountered a motorist who was unaware of CVC 21202’s narrow lane exception.
Ms. Leggett’s response to Mr. Brooks’ letter is incorrect from one perspective and may or may not be correct from another perspective. It’s incorrect because she refers to a group of riders taking the lane en masse when Mr. Brooks is simply asking for a little respect as he rides solo on the streets of Glendale. Mr. Brooks’ solo riding experiences and Ms. Leggett’s encounter with a group of riders are not the same situations, so they should be considered separately.
Ms. Leggett may or may not be correct, however, in her complaint about a group of cyclists taking the lane and preventing her from passing. It depends a lot on where she encountered the group, how many lanes there were, and how narrow the lanes were. If it was possible for the group to “single up” and safely allow Ms. Leggett to pass, they probably should have, if for no other reason than to be polite. It’s also possible that the lane was too narrow even for a solo cyclist to share with Ms. Leggett and that the group recognized this as they were riding along. If that’s the case and Ms. Leggett is upset about having to change lanes or wait for a few moments to pass, I have less sympathy for her. Cyclists’ safety is not subject to the convenience of motorists.
To be fair, there are certainly groups of riders (and solo riders) who disobey the rules of the road and this is probably what’s bothering Ms. Leggett. While it’s true that many cyclists disobey the rules of the road, the same is also true of many motorists. There’s plenty of bad behavior to go around. Just consider sting operations to catch motorists for not yielding to pedestrians, efforts to prevent motorists speeding, and the checkpoints used at night or during holidays to catch drunk drivers and it’s clear that cyclists don’t have the market cornered on bad behavior. Both motorists and cyclists should follow the rules of the road. What sets cyclists’ bad behavior apart from motorists’ bad behavior is that in most situations, cyclists are endangering themselves while the motorists are endangering others. And THAT is a whole other discussion.
Ultimately it comes down to this. Cyclists want respect and understanding from motorists. They want to be able to ride safely, free from harassment – especially from ignorant drivers. Both cyclists and motorists want the other group to use the road legally. We all use the same streets. We owe it to each other to be informed and courteous when we ride and drive.
For those who want to learn more, Bicycling and the Law: Your Rights as a Cyclist by Bob Mionske is an excellent resource.
