On wednesday, 1 July, at 9:50 AM, the "Dave Stahl ride" was on Portola Rd. heading for OLH, about 17 people. Near the entrance to Windy Hill, we were low-keying it, most people riding on the shoulder, Dave, at least one other rider, and I were just to the left of the fog line. Two San Mateo sheriff's deputy motorcycles passed us going the other way, one with his red and blue lights on. They turned around and singled out those of us riding to the left of the fog line to stop. The others were told they could continue. My ticket is for riding "tandem," a word that appears in the Vehicle Code only in the context of truck axles or truck trailers. The violation on the ticket says "21202a VC tandem." The deputy said that they had been instructed to cite everyone riding "tandem" (and failing to stop at STOP signs) by their supervisor, because the good residents of Woodside and Portola Valley are upset with inability to get past cyclist groups, and cyclists failing to stop at STOP signs.
The trouble with these tickets is that the particular section of Portola Rd in Portola Valley doesn't have a bike lane, it has a fog line and a shoulder. Cyclists are required to ride as near to the right edge of the roadway as practicable, but they are not required to ride on the shoulder. Riding on the shoulder is tolerated, while driving a motor vehicle there is not (see Alan Wachtel article linked by Andy Evans, http://www.vcbike.org/bikelaw.htm#_C._Riding_Single . So, formally, if one is near the fog line but in the lane, he is legal, regardless of what is going on to his right on the shoulder of the road.
There was no traffic present at the time other than our cyclist group and the police motorcycles. The lanes on Portola Rd are sufficiently wide that passing was not impeded, if vehicle traffic were present. (I will measure the road.)
Whether my particular Traffic Court Commissioner will understand this is another matter that will be pursued. But I agree with the respondents who say this ticket is bogus.
The deputy who wrote me told one of our group members who is an off-duty Sunnyvale officer that the SM County deputies will be after us in force on Wednesdays and Saturdays on Alpine and Portola Rds for the next three weeks. I don't recall if he said alternate days or all of those days, but be advised.
My court date is 19 August. These "tandem" tickets are invalid in my opinion. The deputies may write tens or hundreds of these tickets by 19 August. I think that communication from SVBC to the San Mateo County Sheriff regarding what is legal and what is not legal could help to avoid a great deal of difficulty for many people.
The bottom line is rider behavior, particularly the Noon Ride, the Valley Ride, and the Spectrum Ride, have gotten the attention of the locals and their police, and they will be after us in force. Unfortunately, they aren't applying any judgment as to who is causing a problem and who is not-- we are all the enemy-- including the father pulling his kids in a Burley who they caught at the Alpine-Portola STOP sign, and we three vicious criminals who were riding on the edge of the lane of Portola Rd with no other traffic present.
I sent this note to Colin on 2 July, I discussed this issue with Greg on 17 July, and with two other SVBC staff members on 20 July. I think that this is an important matter, and one that SVBC should be involved in, and that communication is necessary with the Sheriff soon.
Al Williams
meliot
July 21, 2009 - 9:50am
Permalink
Response to ticketing
I agree that the Sheriff's response to complaints by local residents seems inappropriate. Given what I've read here and on the Silicon Valley Bikes email list, the officers are unclear on the law regarding where cyclists may ride. (Running stops signs by other riders is another matter) If you would like to write a letter on behalf of SVBC explaining this, I'll see that it gets sent to the Sheriff, City of Portola Valley, and any others on SVBC letterhead.
We can't get Corinne to sign it as ED since she is away at the moment, but either you can sign it or Paul Goldstein or I will sign as board members. Please follow the instructions here:
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/advocacy/letters
If you think an in-person meeting with the Sheriff is necessary, please contact Paul or me. We'll try to work something out.
al williams
July 22, 2009 - 9:22pm
Permalink
Mark: Here is my letter to
Mark:
Here is my letter to the sheriff. Please edit as you see fit. I am pretty damned mad about this, which probably comes through. I would be happy to meet with the sheriff, if you think that would be worthwhile.
During the enhanced enforcement of bicycle regulations on Alpine and Portola Rds in July 2009, citations were being written by San Mateo County Sheriff’s Deputies that are not consistent with the California Vehicle Code. Specifically, on 1 July at approximately 10:00 AM, about seventeen of us were riding northbound on Portola Rd., near the entrance to Windy Hill Preserve in the Town of Portola Valley. Three of us were riding just to the left of the fog line, the others were riding to the right of the fog line, on the shoulder of the road. There is no bicycle lane on Portola Rd. in Portola Valley. The three of us who were riding at the right edge of the lane were cited by San Mateo Sheriff’s Dept. motorcycle officers for riding “tandem” in violation of CVC 21202a. These citations are incorrect for a variety of reasons.
First, The initial wording of CVC 21202(a) says, “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,” followed by a list of exceptions. In the case that I am describing, there was no other traffic in the area in our direction. I ride with a mirror, and I know that there was not traffic in our area. In the absence of other traffic in the same direction, there can be no violation of CVC 21202(a).
Second, the same quoted section contains, “…shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway….” Cyclists are not required to ride on the shoulder of the road. According to CVC 21202(a), if there is no curb present, they are required to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway, not to the right-hand edge of the highway. According to CVC 530, “A ‘roadway’ is that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.” According to CVC 360, “.’Highway’ is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. According to these definitions, the space to the right of the fog line is not part of the “roadway” and is not the area that is required to be used by a bicyclist. The three of us who received citations were riding a few inches to the left of the fog line, which is clearly “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,” so we were not in violation of CVC 21202(a). The persons riding to our right were riding on the shoulder, not on the “roadway” at all, as defined, so were not relevant to our situation.
Third, the term “tandem” which appears on our citations, refers to things arranged one behind the other. Cyclists riding in this configuration are clearly not in violation of the vehicle code. This is clearly not a correct or meaningful term to appear on the subject citations and only causes confusion.
We entirely support efforts to make traffic, including bicycle traffic, more orderly in all areas, including Alpine and Portola Rds. However, these efforts must be made in a manner consistent with the Vehicle Code. The citations described here are not consistent with the Vehicle Code. Sheriff’s Deputies should be instructed in proper interpretation and application of the Vehicle Code as it applies to lawful bicycle traffic so that needless and inappropriate citations are not issued. Such citations are a waste of time and effort for all concerned.
Allan R. Williams
1785 Balsa Ave.
San Jose CA 95124
sailjr
August 25, 2009 - 5:14pm
Permalink
What was the response in court?
Interested to hear if you had the August 19 court date and the results.
al williams
August 27, 2009 - 8:04am
Permalink
Court date is delayed
We three transgressors have not received our "courtesy notices" from the court. I spoke with the court a few days before my court date of 19 August, saying that I wanted to contest my citation through written declaration, did not want to go to court, and did not want a warrant issued for my arrest. I was told that I should wait for the courtesy notice, and that my court date would be rescheduled to 30 days or so after the courtesy notice is sent out. I can submit my written declaration during that 30 day period. So I am waiting.
Our tickets can't just disappear. If it is decided by the police not to pursue the tickets, we will receive notification of that.
Add new comment