CHP Officer: "Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"
01-03-06, 01:30 PM
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Is advocating for the right of cyclists to get in the way of cagers important? How important?
Consider this account of a recent event in Los Angeles (I got it by email):
What do you think of the opinion of this CHP officer... " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"?
Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars? Do you agree or disagree?
Is this just the opinion of one rogue officer, or does it reflect the opinion of many officers, perhaps the majority, not to mention the opinion of the vast majority of the public, and even the majority of cyclists? How important is it for cycling advocacy to change this widespread opinion?
How can we cycling advocates argue against the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars while "advocating" for facilities like bike lanes whose primary purpose is to give cyclists "our own space" out of the way of cars?
Is not advocating for bike lanes, any bike lanes, supporting the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cagers? Is that a notion that bicycling advocates should be supporting?
Consider this account of a recent event in Los Angeles (I got it by email):
While leading a weekly group of 100+ riders, descending Mulholland Hwy at nearly 40 MPH a CHP officer pulled up behind us and used his PA to order us out of the roadway. At the time of his request, I was riding on the edge stripe. The shoulder lane was minimal, perhaps, just a couple of feet and in poor condition. The lane width is probably 12 feet. In my opinion, I was riding in the furthest right position on the road in regards to safety. I understand the street was signed for 35 MPH so I was slightly over the speed limit. But realistically speaking I/we were moving at the "normal flow of traffic". Anyway, as we approached another rider I merged left 2 feet to overtake the slower rider. This sent the CHP officer into a road rage. The CHP officer then ordered the entire group to pull to the side of the road.
The group complied and began slowing and moving into the shoulder lane. At this point the officer sped in front of me, abruptly pulled to the right, (now being in front of me) and then applied the brakes extremely hard. (leaving skid marks on the roadway). The group and myself, not expecting such an unpredictable maneuver, wound up running into the back of the officer's car. The injuries to the riders were all minor, cuts/bruises etc. (but who wants to race a 15 lb bike, applying sprinting forces to a machine that has had unengineered forces applied to the forks, handle bars and head tube). Numerous, CHP officers flooded the scene and none of them were willing to pull out their CA VC so I could read 21202 with them and discuss the situation. One officer said, " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars". The SGT on scene said he was too upset by the situation to discuss the matter. But he did claim that we have just seen the end of group bicycle rides in California.
The group complied and began slowing and moving into the shoulder lane. At this point the officer sped in front of me, abruptly pulled to the right, (now being in front of me) and then applied the brakes extremely hard. (leaving skid marks on the roadway). The group and myself, not expecting such an unpredictable maneuver, wound up running into the back of the officer's car. The injuries to the riders were all minor, cuts/bruises etc. (but who wants to race a 15 lb bike, applying sprinting forces to a machine that has had unengineered forces applied to the forks, handle bars and head tube). Numerous, CHP officers flooded the scene and none of them were willing to pull out their CA VC so I could read 21202 with them and discuss the situation. One officer said, " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars". The SGT on scene said he was too upset by the situation to discuss the matter. But he did claim that we have just seen the end of group bicycle rides in California.
Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars? Do you agree or disagree?
Is this just the opinion of one rogue officer, or does it reflect the opinion of many officers, perhaps the majority, not to mention the opinion of the vast majority of the public, and even the majority of cyclists? How important is it for cycling advocacy to change this widespread opinion?
How can we cycling advocates argue against the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars while "advocating" for facilities like bike lanes whose primary purpose is to give cyclists "our own space" out of the way of cars?
Is not advocating for bike lanes, any bike lanes, supporting the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cagers? Is that a notion that bicycling advocates should be supporting?
01-03-06, 01:36 PM
#2
Bent_Rider
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay area
Posts: 1,248
Bikes: Bacchetta Aero, BikeE, Bruce Gordon Rock n Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What do you think of the opinion of this CHP officer... " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars"?
Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars? Do you agree or disagree?
Cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars? Do you agree or disagree?
01-03-06, 01:43 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Land of Oversized Mice and Anteaters
Posts: 535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think the CHP officer is pretty dumb, and should be reported.
Cyclists don't need to stay out of the way of cars. They need to be where it is safe to cycle, and overtaking vehicles need to pass safely.
Cyclists don't need to stay out of the way of cars. They need to be where it is safe to cycle, and overtaking vehicles need to pass safely.
01-03-06, 01:43 PM
#4
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A couple of years ago there was an effort to change the CA law to make it clear not only in the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, that cyclists do not have to stay out of the way of cagers, but the bill died in committee, mostly because the CHP and AAA opposed it.
01-03-06, 01:44 PM
#5
Sophomoric Member
It's time for Cal. roadies to do a CM. 
However, I don't see this as "the end of group riding." More likely, one hot-headed cop whose fellow officers and sergeant wanted to appear to back him up. But this is an important issue IMO and needs to be addressed. Civil suits are definitely in order! I know you Cal. riders will keep us posted.
However, I don't see this as "the end of group riding." More likely, one hot-headed cop whose fellow officers and sergeant wanted to appear to back him up. But this is an important issue IMO and needs to be addressed. Civil suits are definitely in order! I know you Cal. riders will keep us posted.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-03-06, 01:48 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I am beginning to think that group rides are very bad. . .and am personally going to stop. The last two rides I have been on included some 40 folks with a wide range of skills strung out over maybe 100 yards with no real attention paid to stop lights/signs, etc. If the first few go thru then everyone seemed to follow. . .several times the group made dangerous turns, etc with little regard to the laws or the motorists. I think this type of behaviour (that seems inherent in any ride of more than 6-8 folks) leads cops and motorists to not like us. . .
01-03-06, 01:49 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Land of Oversized Mice and Anteaters
Posts: 535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
After thinking about it, the key fact here is that it's a CHP officer, and not a normal LAPD officer or LA Sheriff. Those guys normally don't have any problems with cyclists. Now that you mention the CHP is a major opponent of pro-cycling laws, this makes a lot more sense.
In LA, the CHP is mostly relegated to the freeways, of which we're mostly not allowed to be on. Maybe they don't come into contact with enough cyclists to be used to them?
In LA, the CHP is mostly relegated to the freeways, of which we're mostly not allowed to be on. Maybe they don't come into contact with enough cyclists to be used to them?
01-03-06, 01:49 PM
#8
Pedaled too far.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Petite Roche
Posts: 12,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
Police Harrassment, definitely.
I think the CHP is bull****ting about the spirit of the law, but I think this CHP reflects the attitude of the majority of motorists. I think if you want to advocate VC, you have to change attitudes. A large task.
There is no conflict between advocating bike lanes and road rights. No one is advocating that bicycles should be on every freeway, it's acknowledged that there are some facilities that are car only, some that must be shared, and some that are bike only. But to assert that bicyclists do not have rights to the road is bad.
I think the CHP is bull****ting about the spirit of the law, but I think this CHP reflects the attitude of the majority of motorists. I think if you want to advocate VC, you have to change attitudes. A large task.
There is no conflict between advocating bike lanes and road rights. No one is advocating that bicycles should be on every freeway, it's acknowledged that there are some facilities that are car only, some that must be shared, and some that are bike only. But to assert that bicyclists do not have rights to the road is bad.
01-03-06, 01:55 PM
#9
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Artkansas
There is no conflict between advocating bike lanes and road rights. No one is advocating that bicycles should be on every freeway, it's acknowledged that there are some facilities that are car only, some that must be shared, and some that are bike only. But to assert that bicyclists do not have rights to the road is bad.
Okay, freeways are car-only (except for shoulders on some), and bike paths are bike-only. No problem.
The issue is regarding "shared" roads, like Mulholland Drive. In particular, on "shared" roads, do cyclists have a legal or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars?
More importantly, is a bike lane on a shared road an official sanctioning of the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars? Why or why not?
01-03-06, 02:58 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
It seems to me that the officer was driving dangerously by deliberately forcing cyclists into emergency stops. He should be reported to his superiors. However, he might be able to argue that the group did not respond quickly and clearly to what he regarded, (however wrongly) to a lawful instruction by him.
As for his opinion about the rights of cyclists vis-a-vis drivers, it might be useful if a group such as the one affected, carried some copies of the relevant California vehicle code.
In addition, the group needs to have some contingency plans for a variety of circumstances, particularly how they deal swiftly with an unplanned interruption in their ride. This is particularly important for a group of that size. If they are not all experienced a group riding, then problems will occur, some of them leading to dangerous manoeuvres or conditions for some or all of the participants.
I have seen even experienced riders in my own area behaving as if the traffic regulations don't apply to them, so it isn't just confined to the US.
As for his opinion about the rights of cyclists vis-a-vis drivers, it might be useful if a group such as the one affected, carried some copies of the relevant California vehicle code.
In addition, the group needs to have some contingency plans for a variety of circumstances, particularly how they deal swiftly with an unplanned interruption in their ride. This is particularly important for a group of that size. If they are not all experienced a group riding, then problems will occur, some of them leading to dangerous manoeuvres or conditions for some or all of the participants.
I have seen even experienced riders in my own area behaving as if the traffic regulations don't apply to them, so it isn't just confined to the US.
01-03-06, 03:00 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Ps. My remarks shouldn't be construed as a criticism of this particular group, merely as a general comment on the problems involved in group riding
01-03-06, 03:39 PM
#13
Dominatrikes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Posts: 4,920
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
HH even you stay out of the way of cars. You have described your technique as riding down the center of the lane, checking your mirror periodically for cars approaching from behind, then pulling over to let them pass.
01-03-06, 03:42 PM
#14
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.
01-03-06, 03:48 PM
#15
Bent_Rider
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay area
Posts: 1,248
Bikes: Bacchetta Aero, BikeE, Bruce Gordon Rock n Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Moving aside to facilitate easier passing by faster traffic when it is safe and reasonable to do so is very different from feeling/thinking that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars. Understanding the difference is key to being able to navigate in traffic effectively.
01-03-06, 03:52 PM
#16
52-week commuter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,929
Bikes: Redline Conquest, Cannonday, Specialized, RANS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
If you read the applicable section of the code:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
what is interesting is that it is written in a way that easily allows a casual reader to believe that it means exactly the opposite of what it means -- that cyclists do need to stay out of the way of cars. In that way it is similar to many states; I believe the "as close as practicable" language comes from the model uniform traffic code. My suspicion is that it was written that way to get legislators to vote for something that was the opposite of what they were really voting for!
Anyway, this episode, while sad, is an opportunity for advocacy -- cool, reasoned advocacy.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm
what is interesting is that it is written in a way that easily allows a casual reader to believe that it means exactly the opposite of what it means -- that cyclists do need to stay out of the way of cars. In that way it is similar to many states; I believe the "as close as practicable" language comes from the model uniform traffic code. My suspicion is that it was written that way to get legislators to vote for something that was the opposite of what they were really voting for!
Anyway, this episode, while sad, is an opportunity for advocacy -- cool, reasoned advocacy.
01-03-06, 03:56 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 107
Bikes: A great one!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by atbman
It seems to me that the officer was driving dangerously by deliberately forcing cyclists into emergency stops.
01-03-06, 03:57 PM
#18
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,798
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1393 Post(s)
Liked 1,325 Times
in
837 Posts
Was this a Club Lagrange group ride? I used to ride with them weekly, up Nichols Canyon, across Mulholland, down Benedict Canyon. As we climed to Mulholland, we became so spread out that motorists had no problem passing small groups of 2 or 3 of us, one at a time. We also chose a time of the week, just after dawn on a weekend morning, when traffic was particularly light.
If the cyclists in the group ride cited by Serge had been similarly spread out, rather than in a Critical Mass like formation, I doubt the CHP officer would have had any issue with them whatsoever.
__
Disclosure: I generally ride solo. I do occasionally participate in SMALL group rides, but I specifically avoid large group rides, for various reasons stated by others in this thread.
If the cyclists in the group ride cited by Serge had been similarly spread out, rather than in a Critical Mass like formation, I doubt the CHP officer would have had any issue with them whatsoever.
__
Disclosure: I generally ride solo. I do occasionally participate in SMALL group rides, but I specifically avoid large group rides, for various reasons stated by others in this thread.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
01-03-06, 04:00 PM
#19
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,798
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1393 Post(s)
Liked 1,325 Times
in
837 Posts
This thread raises several interesting, important issues. Do we have a right to use the main travel lane, particularly when the shoulder is dangerous or nonexistent? Yes. Do we have the right to impede traffic unnecessarily? No. Did the CHP officer create a dangerous situation by stopping so abruptly, and should he be reported for so doing? Absolutely.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
01-03-06, 04:05 PM
#20
Bent_Rider
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay area
Posts: 1,248
Bikes: Bacchetta Aero, BikeE, Bruce Gordon Rock n Road
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John E
This thread raises several interesting, important issues. Do we have a right to use the main travel lane, particularly when the shoulder is dangerous or nonexistent? Yes. Do we have the right to impede traffic unnecessarily? No. .
When I'm caging (driving my car) I have for several years now, always abided by the speed limit. If cars are stuck behind me, too bad, it's payback for all the buzzing I've gotten on my bike.
01-03-06, 04:06 PM
#21
Sophomoric Member
If I can't use the lane I might as well throw my bike in the dumpster.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-03-06, 04:10 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think an officer who openly says he doesn't care about the law is an officer who needs to find another profession, and soon
01-03-06, 04:11 PM
#23
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Let me ask my question in the terms that you're using.
Okay, freeways are car-only (except for shoulders on some), and bike paths are bike-only. No problem.
The issue is regarding "shared" roads, like Mulholland Drive. In particular, on "shared" roads, do cyclists have a legal or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars?
More importantly, is a bike lane on a shared road an official sanctioning of the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars? Why or why not?
Okay, freeways are car-only (except for shoulders on some), and bike paths are bike-only. No problem.
The issue is regarding "shared" roads, like Mulholland Drive. In particular, on "shared" roads, do cyclists have a legal or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars?
More importantly, is a bike lane on a shared road an official sanctioning of the notion that cyclists have a legal and/or practical obligation to stay out of the way of cars? Why or why not?
On city streets pedestrians are supposed to have ROW, but often motorists take it, on paths and MUPs, again pedestrians are supposed to have ROW; but in no case do cyclists ever have accepted ROW (even where they should, due to traffic laws, cyclists ROW is often challenged by motorists).
A while back someone presented a hiearchy of ROW that was similar to that followed by air traffic and sea traffic... Something along those lines should be implemented for surface traffic.
01-03-06, 04:15 PM
#24
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by scarry
Can traveling at or above the speed limit be considered "impeding traffic"? I don't think so.
When I'm caging (driving my car) I have for several years now, always abided by the speed limit. If cars are stuck behind me, too bad, it's payback for all the buzzing I've gotten on my bike.
When I'm caging (driving my car) I have for several years now, always abided by the speed limit. If cars are stuck behind me, too bad, it's payback for all the buzzing I've gotten on my bike.
01-03-06, 04:22 PM
#25
370H-SSV-0773H
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Penniless Park, Fla.
Posts: 2,750
Bikes: Merlin Fortius, Specialized Crossroads & Rockhopper, Serotta Fierte, Pedal Force RS2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
- show me the pictures of this incident or another web site detailing the incident...
- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...
- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?
- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?
- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...
Ohio maybe, but not Calif....
:-)
- provide links to pertinent CA motor vehicle law...
- what was the officer's name and/or badge number?
- was this incident reported in any local papers? were any reporters contacted?
- otherwise, i'm not inclined to believe that this incident is true, especially considering that we're talking about CA...
Ohio maybe, but not Calif....
:-)
