CVC 21202.

I will put the code at the bottom, for those interested in reading the
text, and here go over what it spells out. Not what people would like
it to mean or think that it means, but what it spells out.

For those who disagree with my analysis or don't like the outcome, you
might want to call Sacramento and get them to make some changes.

I invite any legal analysis or court rulings that show that I am wrong
or that some part of the analysis is too broadly or too narrowly
interpreted. We can all learn more.


Most roads in Butte County meets one of the exemption criteria spelled
out in CVC 21202(a)(3). Besides the usual obstacles making it OK to
move into the lane, for safety, when the lane is a "...sub-standard
width lane..." -- so is River Road according to the EIR for the
proposed M&T Gravel Plant proposal -- cyclists are not required to
stay all the way to the right. It is so not to "invite" cars to try to
pass, which they will do, where it would be unsafe to do so. The
cyclist is here give the power to determine when that is the case.

Honey Run Road and Centerville Road falls under that definition. The
upper part of Neal Road does too but not the lower part.

A lane is "...sub-standard width..." when it "...is too narrow for a
bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."


CVC 21202(a) is used to claim that bikes need to stay over to the
right when traveling "...at a speed less than the normal speed of
traffic moving in the same direction at that time ..."

It is taken for face value that cyclists are not really traffic in
terms of rights and that cyclists has some unwritten specific
obligation not to interfere with cars -- whatever that means, which is
what leads to confusion about this sub-section.

"...at that time..." means that moment when you were riding/driving there.

"...normal speed of traffic..." meams the speed the traffic "at that
time" is traveling at.

It does not say "the speed cars" (normally) travel at, whatever normal
means, or that normal speed is some kind of average over, say, 24
hours, or some speed parameter set by Cal Trans. It is assumed that
cars set the speed (cyclist are not traffic,) but that is not really
what the section states.

The same phrase is used when determining if a slow-moving vehicle
needs to use the right-hand lane or need to pull over when 5 or more
vehicles are lining up behind. The concept is also used to determine
if a driver is driving unusually fast and is endangering other
vehicles on the road, such as during the rush-hour commute or when a
single car comes up behind a number of combines or other slow-moving
farm machines.

It is a majority rule (the sections does not state that it is not in
this case.) That means that a group of cyclists or combines constitute
what "...normal speed..." "...at that time..." is, unless there are
more cars than bikes or combines.

That means that a group of cyclists or combines are not specifically
legally obligated to make sure that a speeding car can zip unhindered
by or that a car does not have to slow down and wait until passing is
possible safely.

Let me just note, that there are no traffic law ranking types of
traffic in terms of who has first rights. We just take it for granted,
that because cars can run us over, cyclists are second class traffic
and are obligated to give cars special considerations.

I have noted before that if a couple of fast moving cars came up
behind a group of school children out cycling, a call to the police
about the children obstructing traffic would be meet with a totally
different response that the one we are experiencing.

Anyhow, this means that sub-provision (a) (you need to stay to the
right) really only comes into play on roads such as Hwy 32 and 70, on
the lower part of Neal Rd., Pentz Rd., etc.

Can you block traffic? It is a judgment call, but you cannot be pulled
over for violating CVC 21202 on most county roads such as HRR or CVR.
Here, even if you are to the right, cars in many places are unable to
safely pass (they do so anyhow in violation of the law) and that is
what causes the frustration, a frustration that is now taken out on
cyclists by misapplying this law.

CVC 21202(a) also makes it clear that just riding in the middle of a
lane, when there is no traffic, is not illegal. So, when cyclists are
observed doing so, or observed as not being far enough to the right,
however that is determined from inside a vehicle that has no feel for
the road conditions at that stretch, by law enforcement from afar or
from where they parked, this provision holds no reason to pull over
the cyclists.

Even if the patrol car was behind the rider, or observed a car or two
behind the cyclist, the fact that passing is not possible in itself
does not, as claimed when cyclist were pulled over, constitute a
violation of CVC 21202(a) - and then (3) kicks in.

On a straight, flat road, such as those south of town, even if they
have sub-standard width lanes, your are reasonable "obligated" to make
an active effort, but here passing in the other lane is normally easy.


According to CVC 21202(a)(1) you are allowed to pass, meaning that a
rotating pace-line technically fulfills that criteria as stated. A
rotating pace-line can therefore not really be in violation of the
letter of the law -- unless there are more cars behind the rotating
pace-line group than in it. The group really constitutes "..normal
speed..." "...at that time..."


The real issue here, like on Honey Run Road,is that when the group
gets single file cars can still not pass due to the road conditions
and cyclists are now blamed for blocking traffic -- although the
cyclist are traffic and many more that the few cars present.

Now the call flood into 911 and the Sups and out comes law enforcement
and cyclists get pulled over.


On a CVC 21202(a)(3) road riding 2 abreast is not in itself a
violation. It is not a violation of CVC 21202(a) either unless it was
on Hwy 32 and cars were backing up behind. The section gives no right
to ride 5 abreast, but doing so in itself is not really a violation of
this or any other provision as they are spelled out.

When cars see 2 abreast and have to slow, which they likely would have
had to do if it was a single line, cyclist are again perceived to be
breaking some law and the call are again flooding in to 911.


There are more issues, but read this a few time and ruminate. The law
text is down below.

In communities where there is respect between cyclists and cars things
roll smooth. It is the cars, due to their size and speed, that carries
a larger responsibility than the cyclists to be more patients and make
an better effort not to run cyclists off the road.

If cars just slowed a bit and then passed we would have few problems.

Despite this, cyclists will predictably still get pulled over and
blamed, but using or abusing the law to intimidate and punish cyclists
to solve a problem that is due to more, faster, and bigger cars on a
small, narrow, winding road with rollers seems grossly unreasonable.

That along with the refusal to protect cyclists signals that it is
OK to "run cyclists" off the road which putting us all in danger. I
wish that law enforcement and local politicians could appreciate this
and hope that it is not the goal of law enforcement and politicians to
"fear" us off the road.



Section 21202:
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than
the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of
the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a
bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which
highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more
marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of
that roadway as practicable.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.


Preben