Re: [CABOforum] Re: Bicyclist using crosswalk killed in multiple
threat crash
|
Alan Wachtel
|
Nov 05, 2009 19:57 PST
|
Since I drafted the language in SB 734 that takes effect on January 1,
maybe I can shed some light on its purpose, which was to clarify a law
that is now interpreted differently in various jurisdictions, in a way
consistent with what seems to have been the Legislature's intent, and
with the least disruption to existing practices.
Until now, California law has been ambiguous on whether it's legal to
bicycle on sidewalks and in crosswalks. On one hand, vehicles on the
highway must travel on the right half of the roadway, and bicyclists are
subject to the same provision. The sidewalk and crosswalk are not part
of the roadway. On the other hand, the Vehicle Code authorizes cities
and counties to regulate bicycling on sidewalks and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, which makes no sense if it's already prohibited.
As Bob explained, legislative history from the '70s makes it clear that
the second interpretation is correct, and most cities do interpret the
law that way. But other cities, such as Berkeley, have regularly cited
cyclists for riding in crosswalks, or even across streets that intersect
designated bike paths. In Los Angeles, the city attorney went so far as
to say that the city couldn't enact an ordinance permitting cyclists to
cross a street on a bike path.
This legislation, sponsored by the City of Los Angeles, was meant to
resolve these ambiguities. It wasn't intended to address the safety or
desirability of bicycling on sidewalks and in crosswalks or to take a
position for or against regulating it locally. Nor does it establish
traffic rules or assign right-of-way at intersections, which are
non-trivial questions. For that purpose, it might be desirable to follow
the model of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 814.410
(http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html), which requires bicyclists on
a sidewalk to:
--Not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the
path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
--Give an audible warning before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
--Yield the right of way to all pedestrians.
--Not operate in a careless manner that endangers or would be likely to
endanger any person or property.
--Travel at a speed no greater than an ordinary walk when approaching or
entering a crosswalk, approaching or crossing a driveway, or crossing a
curb cut or pedestrian ramp, when a motor vehicle is approaching.
Certainly something like this should be done before giving cyclists the
protection accorded pedestrians at crosswalks (as the Uniform Vehicle
Code does). However, it was a protracted and contentious process for
L.A.'s Department of Transportation to get all the internal approvals it
needed to move forward with the legislative proposal as it stands, and
the city's bike coordinator didn't want to start over again with
additional provisions.
Under current law, bicycling across a roadway between intersections,
including from a shared-use path that isn't designated as a bike path,
is regulated only by section 21804, which requires yielding when
entering or crossing a highway from public or private property. The new
law does not change this.
It isn't clear yet what the facts were in this tragic crash, or how the
law would apply to them.
Alan Wachtel
Palo Alto
Wach-@aol.com
|
|
 |
|
