[South Bay Cycling] New "NO BIKES" marking in Los Altos Hills

[Bob Shanteau]

Mr. Mattas:

Here is the response from Caltrans HQ Office of Signs, Markings & 
External Support to my inquiry about the new NO BIKES marking on S El 
Monte Road. Please let me know whether the Town of Los Altos Hills has 
declared S El Monte Road to be a freeway (or expressway) from which 
bicycles are prohibited. If not, please be aware that the the California 
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices does not allow the marking.

Bob Shanteau

Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045


Wayne Henley wrote:
> Don Howe wrote:
>> Roberta McLaughlin wrote:
>>> Wayne Henley wrote:
>>>> Bob Shanteau wrote:
>>>>> Wayne,
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you be willing to offer an opinion as to whether this NO 
>>>>> BIKES marking that the Town of Los Altos Hills Council directed be 
>>>>> installed on S El Monte Road at Moody Road is allowed under the CA 
>>>>> MUTCD?
>>>>>
>>>>> The bike stencils direct bicyclists to a bike path adjacent to 
>>>>> Foothill College, which is apparently where the Town Council wants 
>>>>> to direct bicyclists as the alternative to S El Monte Road, which 
>>>>> has no paved shoulders and the travel lanes of which have 
>>>>> insufficient width for avehicle and a bicycle to share side by side.
>>>> I have my own opinion, but could you do a little research and let 
>>>> me know what you think?
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Henley
>>>> Chief, Office of Signs, Markings & External Support
>>>> Phone 916-654-6246
>>>> Calnet 464-6246
>>>> Cell 916-425-8450
>>> I am not sure a community can restrict bicycles from using any 
>>> public roadway (except those lawfully prohibited to bikes such as 
>>> freeways). See this web page:
>>> <http://www.vcbike.org/bikelaw/bikelaw.htm#_III._What_Roads>.
>>>
>>> But if Los Altos Hills is doing this legally, then the pavement 
>>> markings should supplement signs (CA MUTCD Section 9B.08 and 3B.19). 
>>> The "Word" markings are not expressly prohibited in the Ca MUTCD.
>>>
>>> Section 9B.08 No Bicycles Sign (R5-6) 
>>> <http://rmshant.googlepages.com/R5-6Nobicyclessign.jpg>
>>> Guidance:
>>>    Where bicyclists are prohibited, the No Bicycles (R5-6) sign (see 
>>> Figure 9B-2) should may be installed at the entrance to the facility.
>>> Option:
>>>     Where pedestrians and motor-driven cycles are also prohibited, 
>>> it may be more desirable to use the R5- 10a word message sign that 
>>> is described in Section 2B.36.
>>>
>>> Section 3B.19 Pavement Word and Symbol Markings
>>> Support:
>>>     Word and symbol markings on the pavement are used for the 
>>> purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic. Symbol messages 
>>> are preferable to word messages. Examples of standard word and arrow 
>>> pavement markings are shown in Figures 3B-20 3B-20(CA) and 3B-21 
>>> 3B-21(CA).
>>>     Normally, pavement word and symbol markings supplement standard 
>>> signing.
>>> Standard:
>>>    Word and symbol markings shall be white, except as otherwise 
>>> noted in this Section.
>>> Guidance:
>>>     Letters and numerals should be 1.8 m (6 ft) 2.44 m (8 ft) or 
>>> more in height.
>>>     Word and symbol markings should not exceed three lines of 
>>> information.
>>>     If a pavement marking word message consists of more than one 
>>> line of information, it should read in the direction of travel. The 
>>> first word of the message should be nearest to the road user.
>>>
>>> Roberta L. McLaughlin, PE, TE, PTOE
>>> Office of Signs, Markings and External Support
>>> Division of Traffic Operations
>>> California Department of Transportation
>>> PHONE: 916-651-1248
>>> FAX: 916-653-3055
>> Roberta's find on-line of case law would probably go a long way to 
>> get violations thrown out of court, if any are written on a R5-6 sign 
>> posted with supplementing pavement markings "NO BIKES." About all the 
>> pavement markings might do is "discourage" bicyclists from taking the 
>> road without shoulders; but, law enforcement could not cite and 
>> successfully defend an infraction written pursuant to CVC 23330 - - 
>> because this is not a vehicular crossing. That is the only violation 
>> listed in the back of CVC where riding a bicycle is specifically 
>> prohibited.
>>
>> (28) Existing Case Law: Bicyclists can be prohibited only from 
>> freeways and toll bridges. If all rights of access to a freeway, or a 
>> designated portion of it, have been acquired, then that portion may 
>> be prohibited or restricted to bicyclists by the Department of 
>> Transportation or by local authorities having jurisdiction (Cal. Veh. 
>> Code § 21960(a) (West 1971 & Supp. 1995)). Vehicular crossings (toll 
>> bridges) are ordinarily closed to bicycles, unless the Department of 
>> Transportation indicates by signs that bicycles are permitted (id. § 
>> 23330 (West 1985)).
>>
>> As a direct consequence of Cal. Veh. Code § 21200 and the holdings 
>> cited supra in Rumford v. City of Berkeley,[25] Hunt v. Los Angeles 
>> Ry. Corp., [26] and Flury v. Beeskau,[27] bicyclists are entitled to 
>> travel on all roads except those that are lawfully prohibited to 
>> them.[28] Motorists are frequently unaware of this principle, and 
>> sometimes react with anger—and occasionally with belligerent 
>> actions—when bicyclists “intrude” onto “their” roads. This response 
>> is especially likely when a separated bike path is available nearby.
>>
>> Many motorists do not know that legally, bicyclists on conventional 
>> roadways are never required to use a separated path, or even a 
>> shoulder. [29] Further, there are persuasive reasons why cyclists 
>> prefer the roadway. Like other travelers, bicyclists want to reach 
>> their destinations safely, conveniently, and with minimum delay. 
>> Paths are often indirect and disconnected; they fail to serve the 
>> cyclist’s destination; they may be poorly designed and maintained; 
>> and they are usually shared with pedestrians. The roadway has none of 
>> these drawbacks. Nor are sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway 
>> safer than the road, as noncyclists and even many cyclists believe. 
>> Bicycle riders on sidewalks parallel to arterial streets have been 
>> found to suffer bicycle-car collisions 1.8 times the rate of those on 
>> the adjacent roadway (because of blind conflicts at intersections and 
>> the promotion of wrong-way travel).[30] The conclusion that parallel 
>> paths are undesirable is accepted as fact in existing standards for 
>> bikeway design.[31] In any case, almost every bicycle trip must at 
>> some point use roadways shared with motorists, because the roadway 
>> system serves nearly every origin and destination, while bicycle 
>> facilities do not and cannot.
>>
>> Bicyclists, too, may be unaware of their right to use the roadway, 
>> ignorant of its advantages, or intimidated by belligerent motor 
>> vehicle traffic. As a result, bicyclists may be unwilling to exercise 
>> their rights under the law. A clearer statement of the law would lead 
>> to greater respect for bicyclists’ rights.
>>
>> Don Howe
>> Office of Signs, Markings & External Support
>> Division of Traffic Operations
>> California Department of Transportation
>> (916) 654-2634 * don.howe at dot.ca.gov
> If the prohibition is legal then the markings should supplement the 
> R5-6 sign <http://rmshant.googlepages.com/R5-6Nobicyclessign.jpg>, but 
> if you look at the Wachtel article, it is highly unlikely that the 
> prohibition is legal.
>
> Wayne Henley
> Chief, Office of Signs, Markings & External Support
> Phone 916-654-6246
> Calnet 464-6246
> Cell 916-425-8450