Yes Steve, that has always been the case. But now more residents of Malibu will come to be offended by those sight-seeing tourists speeding up the coast.

Myth: People who cite the laws of physics when it comes to bicycles vs. cars vs. the law have the slightest clue about physics.

Fact: They're just trying to rationalize their ignorant delusions about safety so that they can rationalize their delusion that they shouldn't have to share the road with bicyclists.

The drunk motorist who rear-ended my bicycle at 50 mph went to prison, Steve. I guess that means your supposed myth that "California vehicle laws will protect slow moving Bicyclists" is in fact, fact.

The California vehicle laws will rightfully punish offenders and I am glad the guy who hit you is in prison but that is after the fact that the laws of physics kicked your ass . Geesh,,,, At 50 mph ?? how did you survive that ? How are you here to talk about it ? I am glad you are , But don't you think that it would be safer on PCH if a local ordinance was written to ride single file versus the socializing " three abreasters " or large groups that inconsistently pass each other without looking or signaling into the traffic lane from right of the white line ? For the Safety of road bikers it is such a risk to assume that every California driver or sight seeing tourist from another country will be aware that there may be a group of slow moving riders around the next blind curve . All the Awareness and all the laws don't completely diminish the risk that riding amongst herds of 2,000 pounds of raging steel is dangerous .

You are exactly right. The solution is to re-engineer the road. Narrow lanes. Increase shoulder width. Mark bike routes.

There are all kinds of "road diet" engineering changes that can be made.

I am researching a book on the history of PCH. Did you know most of it was laid out in 1938 (east of Trancas Creek) or 1946? And that the design speed for it is 65 miles an hour?

The current design fosters careless driving. Law enforcement is aimed at drunk drivers (good) and not distracted drivers (could be better).

It CAN be made safer. It MUST be made safer.

(I survived by luck. I rolled over the windshield and rolled down the road in a thick winter jacket. I was very lucky.)

I just read your excellent article and join the others that thank you and Eric for sharing this important information.

You -can- ride a bike on US 101 along the coast. It is a marked bike route, and there is a marked bike lane along US 101 at Las Conchitas. The vehicle speed limit there is 65 mph, and the bike lane is marked.

Obviously, it's better not to ride bikes on freeways. In some places where there are frontage roads, it's illegal. And it would be better if there was a wider PCH with a separate bike route. But that's not gonna happen.

And yes, it is necessary to have this highway as a bike lane. The people of this state have said so, repeatedly. It's a state law, it's even in the state Constitution!

I refuse to cede my highway to the inconsiderate car driver. For too long, there has been a "my way on the highway" attitude by many Malibu drivers. I've seen SUVs purposefully buzz bikes, and I've seen city officials with attitudes that can charitably be described as anti-bikes.

That is what is so important about Susan's column. This should be a real wake up call to drivers and bicyclists alike. Susan took some heat a year ago for voicing publicly what many Malibu residents thought privately. It is good to see a reasonable meeting of the minds!

Jamie, yours is a common question and is at the 'root' (sorry) of a lot of the myths. In this case, bikes were never 'added' to PCH. They were always rightfully there, bike route or not. Rather, traffic (car, truck, service vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian) has increased and the road has degraded. Hence the value of this article making it clear to readers that most cyclists on PCH are 'law-abiding' as opposed to 'scofflaws'. The difference in perception is very important.

Jamie, you might also consider that a lot of bicyclists enjoy riding in the roads in the Santa Monica Mountains, which have very little traffic. The problem is that to get from one of those roads to the other, cyclists have pretty much no other alternative other than to take PCH.

We're also a little leery of the argument that we should be banned from certain roads out of interest for our own safety. It's often a thinly veiled excuse used by those unwilling to share the road.

It's important to realize that cyclists (most of them anyway) aren't interested in getting in your way or putting themselves at unnecessary risk. It's important to also realize that virtually all of us drive automobiles too, and are very familiar with the motorist's perspective on these issues. Conversely, few motorists ride bicycles as we do, and are often simply unaware of what the law allows and requires us to do as users of the same roadway. That's one reason why this article is so important. It clarifies a lot of misconceptions.

Getting doored is only a risk if you don't ride safely. You should always ride a foot or two to the left of where a fully open door would extend to. Doorings are extremely easy to avoid by cyclists who ride with proper lane positioning.

This is so true Lydia. Going green is a great point. One thing we have not brought up is distracted driving. This has increased the hazard for everyone - cars and bikes. I commute three days a week from Malibu to my office near Santa Monica Airport. I don't text, paint my nails or drink coffee. I don't tailgate or throw empty Starbucks cups out the window at cyclists. I chill out by listening to books on tape from the library every day for the past five years. It's a great way to turn a nasty commute into a pleasurable experience. I suggest this to all the BMWs, SUVs, Range Rovers and Mercedes that speed recklessly down PCH. Listen to books - it calms the soul.

It -IS- possible to make that road safer. Road diet! Narrow the traffic lanes -- in some places they are 14 feet wide!

The nasty little secret about PCH is that the 85th percentile average speed is near 55 in the 45 zones, and above 60 in the 50 zones. The speed limits are set artificially low because of a "landslide danger" loophole -- thank goodness for that.

Re-engineering the road will reduce the average speed to near the speed limit.

The reality of the road is that EVERY road is dangerous. A drunk woman killed a bicyclist whop was in a bike lane 12 feet from the travel lane, a block away from the Lost Hills Sheriff Station, in the middle of the day.

Every road can be made incrementally safer. On PCH the increment is large. We just haven't tried, the city's solution has been to shrug our shoulders and whine that everything is Caltrans' fault. Caltrans points right back at the city. Perfect circle jerk.

Jamie,
There certainly are risks, but most can be mitigated. The only fatal bike-car collisions we've had on the highway in the last half decade were:
1) Two bicyclists hit from behind by a catering truck that had someone illegally cooking in the back, so the driver decided to run down the bicyclists rather than hit his brakes (gross negligence)
2) One bicyclist killed and one injured at an all-night event by a drunk driver (DUI)
Day-to-day bicycling is remarkably safe given all the conditions we know are a challenge to pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers alike. Following many of the techniques alluded to in the article will greatly reduce the particular risks that lead to most collisions.
There's not much we can do to eliminate the freak accidents--which do occur--but we all can do our part by driving sober, paying attention, and controlling our speed. I genuinely appreciate your concern for our safety. The dangers of PCH are not unique to bicyclists and we need to deal with them holistically through a combination of strategies.

I'm sure many cyclists would love to have a real bike lane on PCH, but that requires Caltrans to restripe the road so that enough space exists for the bike lane along length of the route, and actually take care of the bike lane by keeping it free of debris. As long as the far edge of the road is a shoulder and not a real lane, Caltrans doesn't have to take care of it nearly as well, which is precisely why sometimes cyclists have to leave the shoulder to use the right lane. Many of the safety issues on PCH, like having curbs or sidewalks near bus stops, better pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, safer intersections etc. come down to lack of funding and political will.

About the difference between the 405 and PCH, one is a limited access freeway and the other is a highway. A freeway will have posted signs that explicitly prohibit pedal driven vehicles, but any road or highway where it is not explicitly forbidden, bicycling is allowed. PCH is also part of the historic pacific coast bicycling route.

Part of the supreme court legal precedent for the concept of right to travel, is that bicyclists cannot be impeded from traveling. So bicyclists can only be forbidden from highways that have adjacent local access or alternative route options. This also means that where no viable alternative route exists, bicyclists can use freeway shoulders as well, which locally includes a few sections of the 101.

Steve, the California Vehicle Code allows the DOT to limit freeway access.

Regarding riding two or more abreast, if a cyclist is legally riding in the lane, and there is not room for both a cyclist and a car, then the driver of the car has to change before he drives too close to the cyclist. So really, does it matter whether the cyclists are single file or two (or more)-abreast? You have seen the signs, I'm sure, where cyclists are prohibited (along with tractors, mopeds et cetera).

Traffic is not lawful at 50mph when there is slower traffic ahead. Faster traffic must slow or pass safely.

Here's a helpful description of the speed limit from the DMV website (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/speed_limits.htm):

California has a "Basic Speed Law." This law means that you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. For example, if you are driving 45 mph in a 55 mph speed zone during a dense fog, you could be cited for driving "too fast for conditions." You may never legally drive faster than the posted speed limit, even if you think it is safe.

Regardless of the posted speed limit, your speed should depend on:

The number and speed of other vehicles on the road.
Whether the road surface is smooth, rough, graveled, wet, dry, wide, or narrow.
Bicyclists or pedestrians walking on the road’s edge or crossing the street.
Whether it is raining, foggy, snowing, windy, or dusty.

Steve,
Gary and David covered the bases pretty well, but remember that we want to be in the lane even less than you want us to be there. Believe me, if there was a safer position for me to ride in, I'd do it.

The sight lines on PCH are more than adequate for the speed differential if the bicyclist is riding in a good lane position and drivers are scanning the road ahead. Close calls tend to happen when bicyclists are hugging the fog line, leaving the impression that there is enough room for drivers to pass when there really isn't. By the time the driver realizes how close they are passing it's too late to correct. In most cases, all the slowing that's needed to pass safely is just to get off the accelerator.

If you're questioning the general safety of having a 45-50 mph speed limit on a road with street parking, garages and driveways, trash pickup, and all the other characteristics of a residential neighborhood, then I'm sure that just about every PCH resident will agree that speeds need to be lower. I hope you'll join the effort to redesign PCH so that it is safer for everyone.

Myth: People claiming common sense are in possession of common sense.

Fact: People claiming common sense are usually just demonstrating their common ignorance.

RE:David Huntsman
9:40 pm on Wednesday, May 11, 2011
"Traffic is not lawful at 50mph when there is slower traffic ahead. Faster traffic must slow or pass safely. California has a "Basic Speed Law." This law means that you may never drive faster than is safe for current conditions. For example, if you are driving 45 mph in a 55 mph speed zone during a dense fog, you could be cited for driving "too fast for conditions." You may never legally drive faster than the posted speed limit, even if you think it is safe."

You fail to mention that the law also states that “no person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

Sorry hellwood but you don't know what you are talking about.

There is no law that says that slow traffic is not permitted on the road. The California Vehicle Code is online. I invite you to read it and try to prove me wrong.

Road users cannot be denied their right to use the road due to being unable to maintain the speed of other traffic. This has held up in case law in multiple states.

The impeded law is CVC 21656. In order for 21656 to apply, you have to have ALL of the following conditions:

1. A two lane road (one lane each way) where passing is illegal or unsafe due to oncoming traffic.
2. A slow road user (bicycle or any slow moving vehicle).
3. FIVE or more vehicles stuck behind them.
4. A safe place for the slow road user to turn out to let others pass.

If you have a road with more than one lane in the given direction, 21656 does not apply.
If the bicycle is travelling at or above the normal speed of traffic at that time, 21656 does not apply (somewhat unusual but it does happen).
If four or fewer vehicles are stuck behind them, then 21656 does not apply.
If there is no safe place to turn out to let people pass, then 21656 does not apply.

"RE: billdsd
7:53 pm on Friday, March 16, 2012
Sorry hellwood but you don't know what you are talking about.
There is no law that says that slow traffic is not permitted on the road. The California Vehicle Code is online. I invite you to read it and try to prove me wrong."

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

Did you even read what you just copied?

It includes an exception because of grade. That means that if a road use can't maintain a given speed then they can't be required to go at a given speed. It was no doubt created for big trucks going up hills but it works just as well for bicycles. I've been on grades that permitted me to ride my bicycle at 55mph. I know people who've gone over 70mph on a bicycle.

CVC 22400 makes no provision for removing the right to the road from any road user. It just requires you to maintain speed; unless you can't for some reason.

I have been following bicycle law for over two decades and I have never heard of a bicyclist being cited for 22400. It would never hold up in court if there was one. I have heard of a few tickets in other states for similar laws and in each case, the tickets were thrown out because (1) bicyclists have a right to use the road and (2) they cannot be required to be travel at a speed faster than they can reasonably sustain. The case law for this is well established.

As usual, the anti-cyclists show that they don't know the law.

RE: billdsd
9:40 pm on Friday, March 16, 2012
"CVC 22400 makes no provision for removing the right to the road from any road user. It just requires you to maintain speed; unless you can't for some reason.
the tickets were thrown out because they cannot be required to be travel at a speed faster than they can reasonably sustain. The case law for this is well established.
As usual, the anti-cyclists show that they don't know the law."

This isn't the bible. You cant just twist all the words around to suit your personal beliefs. You can argue with a lawyer…and FYI, I am far from anti-cyclist. For all you know, I could whoop your ass on a bike, both on the street and off-road despite your shaved arms and legs and leotard.

Hellwood wrote: "You fail to mention that the law also states that “no person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic."

Hellwood, that section is not applicable to cyclists. See CVC section 21200(a), specifically the last clause beginning with the word 'except': " A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application."

Short answer: the "minimum speed law" you are referring to is one of those that, by its very nature, does not apply to cyclists.

I'm not twisting the words. They say what they say. You can't use 22400 to prevent bicyclists from using the roads. Cops have attempted to use similar laws against bicyclists in other states and they have failed. They would fail in California if they tried. As near as I can tell, they haven't tried. That's because:

1. Bicyclists have the right to use the road. See CVC 21200(a).
2. Bicyclists cannot be required to travel at a speed greater than they can reasonably sustain. Basic logic.

What could be simpler? You're grasping at straws trying to come up with an excuse to not share the road with bicyclists.

When big trucks go up I-5 on the grapevine (north of L.A.) it is common to see them going 10-15mph in a 65mph zone (55mph for big trucks). They can't go any faster than that because it's steep and long and they are very heavily loaded. They don't get cited for 22400 because they can't go any faster.

22400 merely requires road users to travel at a minimum speed if they can. Any other interpretation shows extreme prejudice as well as limited literacy and logic skills.

How about you just learn how to change lanes? Do you refer to the slow lane as your "precious"?

This is a tough one where common practice and the law don't align. If sight lines are good, it is much appreciated when drivers cross over the yellow line to pass with more clearance. And if sight lines aren't good, well then it's not safe to pass anyway. It's all part of the negotiation we must do when we share the road with other people.

You may definitely NOT LEGALLY cross a double yellow line to pass slow moving traffic according to the CA vehicle code. That being said, I sort of doubt a cop would issue a ticket for it unless he/she was feeling pretty ornery. There is currently some 3' passing room legislation in the works that will make this legal if it passes as it's currently written though. But for now, it's definitely not legal.

5) CONTINUED: Whenever I saw Racers riding two or even three abreast and they were a "Pack", inevitably, I observed that they were inside the white line and debris did not seem to be much of a concern. So, what is the true answer (NOT THE FACT - THE TRUTH)??? Well, since bicyclists are trying to "Share the Road", some of the more radical types (who tend to be Racers) are trying to send a message: "Hey, you 2000+ pound vehicle driver, be careful because I am here and take note that I have the right to be here too." I guess being a bicyclist on a mission to lay claim to your territory, you may think from this perspective that you are correct, but I don't think you are." Share the Road is not about a bicycle playing "Chicken" with cars.

5) CONTINUED: Here's an anecdote...I recently had an experience on a Sunday, mid-morning, going east in the right lane of PCH, at the bottom of the hill from Geoffrey's. There was a pack of Recreationlist, two-abreast and three-abreast, traveling about 30+ mph, when I slowed to about 40 mph (this is a 55 mph zone) in a pack of cars around me. All of a sudden, a racer darted in front of me to pass the pack. I slammed on my brakes. The car behind me slammed on his brakes...fortunately, no one was physically violated but the stress level peaked. I asked myself who was wrong? More importantly, is the message "Share the Road" being taken too far by some bicyclists? Is it encouraging irrational behavior by bicyclists to test the limits?

6) I began observing the maximum speeds Racers could achieve on a bicycle. I asked the guy who fixed my flat at a bicycle shop in Woodland Hills, how fast can a bicyclist go at the fastest speed. He said, "About 40 mph." So, I tested this statement by traveling beside Racers going downhill on Kanon and PCH, and I estimate an average 37 mph. From my perspective, we have a dysfunctional situation with this "Share the Road" promotion. While I wish to share the scenic beauty of Malibu, I am finding it difficult to rationalize sharing the road with bicyclists who race at the fastest 37 mph on a HIGHWAY (an Interstate through-fare) where the minimum speed is 55 mph for almost 20 miles of Malibu's 27 miles of highway.

7) Most accidents occur in the right lane. This happens for many reasons. Some areas are just too problematic, i.e., mainly Zuma Beach and from Surfrider east to Topanga, with the 45 mph speed limit in high traffic zones, parked cars unloading surfboards, kids, animals, etc., no sidewalks, bicycles everywhere, passing lane laws ignored by Malibuites and tourists alike makes these two area seriously hazardous. While I feel the speed limit should be reduced in these areas, I also feel that bicycles should not be allowed. Let’s face it, the scenic area is west of Pepperdine. There is a pedestrian path, much like the one in Venice and Santa Monica, where bicyclists ride all the time. Yes, the Racers have to slow down, but that’s only for three of the 23 miles where they can try to go fast. The area west of the Ralph’s parking lot should be off limits to Racing bicyclists…it’s just too problematic to accommodate Racers. Residents who wish to ride their bike to local destinations, from their homes to the store or the beach should be allowed.

NOTE TO CLARIFY: The "Pedestrian Path" I was referring to is the one at Zuma, and I meant to suggest that the bicycle course should be detoured to the Zuma path, off the highway for this stretch of the bike ride, because of the heavy parking on the highway and speed limit.

Bob,
You raise a number of points which I'll try to address.
Debris: PCH is swept no more than once every three weeks. There is one Caltrans sweeper that has hundreds of miles of territory, and if there happens to be a parked car in the shoulder the day it comes by, then we're out of luck. Every vehicle driving by has a draft that does a decent job of keeping the lanes clear. Unfortunately, this usually just sweeps the gravel and glass to the side where it lands in the shoulder. Additionally, after accidents, usually the tow truck drivers sweep the road to the fog line and no more, leaving broken glass in piles on the shoulder. Lastly, there are a number of places where the lanes and the shoulder are paved to different standards, with the shoulder at a lower grade more prone to water damage, cracks, etc. Suffice it to say that the shoulder is problematic in many areas and in many ways that simply aren't visible to drivers. Cars are designed to deal with road hazards by going over them--they have suspension, low pressure pneumatic tires (~30 psi), and four wheels. Bicycles deal with road hazards by going around them. We are very maneuverable, but sometimes even the smallest piece of glass, gravel, or wire shard can cause a flat. All of these things are what is blown onto the shoulder from vehicles.

8) I have a question: Do bicyclists have to register their bike and does the bicyclist have to go through a test to get a license?

If not, then they must, especially if they want to ride on PCH. If bicyclists want to share the road then they should adhere to the rules of the road, as must cars. If bicyclists want to share the road then they should contribute to the maintenance of the road as does licensed and registered vehicle drivers do.

One more point on the debris issue:
You mention a difference between the type of bicyclist and where they position themselves. This has to do with speed, handling characteristics, and tire durability of the different bicycles. On a touring bike, tires are wider, thicker, and at a lower pressure and therefore less vulnerable to some types of debris. Also, because they tend to be traveling slower, they have more time to react to smaller debris when faster bicyclists have to position themselves to just avoid potentially hazardous locations.
Mountain bikes and beach cruisers that many of the locals use are similar to touring bikes in that their tires are relatively tougher and speeds lower. Also, there's an element of fear that pushes them to the edge of the road even if that actually increases their risks from some hazards.

I know the Geoffrey's hill well, although I am usually by myself when I ride there. What tends to happens in packs at the bottom of the hill is that the front slows down while the back is still at a higher speed. There is a natural widening of the pack that occurs whenever a pack slows down and the reverse happens when a pack accelerates--it gets strung out. Very likely the guy that "darted" out in front of you was right at the point where the pack was widening.

This is a legitimately difficult situation that requires mutual accommodation. One the one hand, bicyclists can't expect to be able to just "dart" out in front of a moving vehicle. But, on the other hand, a passing driver needs to expect some degree of lateral movement and plan ahead for it. Here's what I mean:

If you slowed down to 40 mph, while the bicyclists were just starting up a hill, the speed differential is likely 25 mph. Any safe passing distance would be at a minimum 3 feet and likely more like 5 feet. In other words, even if the bicyclists are on the shoulder, you may need to (partially) change lanes to leave a safe distance. The vehicle code assigns the responsibility for safe passing solely to the overtaking vehicle. With adequate clearance, even if a bicyclist moves laterally, a collision will be averted. White lines on the pavement don't negate the need to leave adequate clearance.

9) Fact: PCH does not have bike lanes in Malibu. The white line, known as the fog line, marks the edge between the travel lane and the shoulder. The shoulder is not considered part of the “roadway,” which is defined as the part of the highway ordinarily used for vehicular travel.

Bicyclists have laid claim to the "shoulder" on the inside of the "fog line" and rightfully so...common law would support this area as the bicyclist's safe area. Since it is not law and officially recognized, then it must become law and offically recognized as the bike lane. It seems to me that allowing this to remian a gray area of disputes fuels the argument of rights to use the highway and promotes the game of bike Racers playing chicken with cars. It also, promotes aggressive behavior by both car drivers and bicyclists. A car is not allowed to travel in or block a designating bike lane.

Speed: There are two speed limits that both vehicles and bicycles must abide by. One is the posted maximum speed limit, which is 55 in the far western end near the county line, 50 from approximately Trancas to John Tyler, and 45 from Pepperdine to Santa Monica. The second is the "safe speed law" which governs every roadway in California: no driver may travel faster than is safe for conditions. Those conditions can be weather (rain, fog, sleet, snow), hazards (construction, debris, obstacles), or other road users (traffic, pedestrians, buses, bicyclists).

You brought up scenarios where you assume that 55 is the safe speed simply because it is a number on a sign, or where collisions happen in the right lane because the side of the road is a busy place. The overriding consideration in these scenarios is what is considered a safe speed. Collisions, or near misses are prima facie evidence of unsafe speeds in these difficult situations. There is no guarantee, or even a fair expectation, that just because a speed limit is posted that drivers will be able to travel at that speed all the time. On busy roads, we all must leave enough margin of error to react to unexpected developments--that means leaving enough space between you and the car in front of you, leaving enough horizontal clearance between you and the people you're passing, and setting your speed based on visibility and the ability to stop if needed.

And this is me speaking as a driver!

C.V.C. 21650. Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

Several exceptions are then given including (g) This section does not prohibit the operation of bicycles on any shoulder of a highway, on any sidewalk, on any bicycle path within a highway, or along any crosswalk or bicycle path crossing, where the operation is not otherwise prohibited by this code or local ordinance.

Bicyclists are clearly allowed under CA law to use a shoulder, but they are also not obligated to use the shoulder. Most cyclists will ride the shoulder when the shoulder is wide enough and well kept enough to be safely ridden, because believe me, none of us really want to mix with PCH traffic anymore than we have to.

For a real bike lane to be defined, that would require work from Caltrans. Good luck getting Caltrans to do anything.

Licensing: Every bike racer I know is also a licensed driver. As this article points out, having a card in one's wallet doesn't mean one knows every detail of the vehicle code or we wouldn't have needed to write this article.

Right lane: As I've said above, bicyclists would love it if the shoulder offered a safe, uninterrupted place to ride. It doesn't for a variety of reasons (maintenance, parking, width, etc.) and so here we are.

Fact: "Hugging the curb" is discouraged as a very unsafe practice by every cycling safety organization in the US and England.

Fact: Road maintenance in California comes out of the general fund, and is absolutely not paid for by gas taxes or car registration.

Engineering Fact: Road damage increases exponentially to vehicle weight per axle.

Fact: Since the majority of the general fund comes from income tax and property taxes, and cycling has, effectively, no effect of degradation on the road, cyclist subsidized the cost of roads many times more per mile of roadway than automobile drivers do.

Every situation is a slightly different context, and I wasn't there, but I'll try and relate what I think may have been an issue there. Based on fact there was an angry response from cyclists, I'm going to guess they felt they were being cut off without sufficient time to react.

One of the scariest things for cyclists is being cut off by right turning cars, known as a right hook. Even if a bicyclist is not hit, having to break suddenly can be dangerous and heart rate spike inducing experience. Even more so in a group of cyclists, because while riding in a pack improves visibility, a safety benefit, it also has it's own risks, which is that cyclists can collide with each other. If the driver turned in front of the cyclists without enough space and time to spare, their having to break suddenly can risk cyclists touching wheels if some riders break harder than others.

On PCH, since no bike lane exists, the shoulder is used like an additional lane. Now imagine if it really were an additional lane, and a car was there instead of a pack of cyclists, would a driver turn in front of an oncoming car to enter a driveway? No. The right thing to do is move in behind and let the traffic clear the driveway before turning across it. PCH is not a freeway, it has driveways and parking and other things going on, and other car traffic behind is obligated to be patient.

I find from my own experience, drivers often underestimate how fast cyclists are traveling, assume they can fly by and turn across their path, thinking there is more space than is really there, because they thought the cyclists must surely be going too slow for it to matter.

If this situation were a group of strong racing or recreational riders in a pack formation, which boosts aerodynamics, they could easily be cruising 30 mph depending on how hard they were pushing it, and which way the wind is blowing. At that kind of speed on a bike, it's hard to suddenly come to a stop, and based on what you described, I'm thinking they probably felt the driver pulled in front of their path with not enough margin.

Thanks for responding Gary, however....
There was simply no way to pull behind the pack of bicylists, the area doesn't provide shoulder width to accomodate a vehicle. My friend was fully aware of the vehicular traffic AND the bicyling group but it seems as if the bicycling packs are oblivious to the vehicular traffic. They were relatively far from the driveway and my friend put the turn signal on BEFORE she aligned with the pack expecting them to be aware of the upcoming driveway and traffic around them. The pack - we feel - should have decreased their speed due to the upcoming commercial driveway and the obvious public event that brought out pedestrian activity as well. If they'd been aware, they'd also have recognized the turn signal and the movement to the right by my friend as she was doing all she could to avoid a rear end collision or worse. They had plenty of time, and it showed because not one of them collided with each other or came close to her vehicle.
Not enough margin? Are there laws regarding the margin that is supposed to be folllowed or how a driver is expected to determine the estimated speed of the bicyclists?
Let's keep to discussing the large parking lots and the egress and ingress of vehicles to those lots, shouldn't bicyclists be adjusting to the safety of the area rather than expecting others to be more safe so they can continue on their training runs or recreational pursuit?

I was not there, so I can't say exactly how it went down or who was right or wrong with any degree of certainty, what the margins, speed or distances are, but I tried to give perspective on similar situations I've encountered. It is my experience though that someone who only drives, but does not have experience of being a road cyclist as well, perceives things differently than someone who has been in both shoes.

The fact that no one fell over does not imply plenty of space. A near miss can be very alarming. As for what is an acceptable margin, it's not a hard and fast rule, it's contextual.

It is quite possible the group of cyclists were overreacting, and if a large margin was indeed given and turn signal used to indicate intent, than group should have slowed to allow your vehicle in.

Under vehicle law and the rules of the road, everyone has an obligation to everyone else's safety, and one persons breaking the rules or not being safe, also does not justify anyone else doing the same, or others from neglecting the safety of the party violating the rules. For example if a driver runs a red light, and you have green, you have the right of way to slam into them, but you also have an obligation to not cause a collision when you know you can avoid one.

I was giving a possible perspective, but doesn't necessarily mean cyclists were in the right, or that I agree with how it played out. There are bad cyclists just the same as bad drivers.

"...she was doing all she could to avoid a rear end collision or worse"

I'm not sure I understand what was happening here, if she was almost being rear ended, that implies drivers behind were tailgating, which is illegal behavior on the part of other drivers. I find when I drive, and I drive very carefully and within speed limits, that other drivers try to intimidate me into going faster or rushing things. I think that creates a domino effect of everyone feeling hurried, and even people want to drive slower or safer are pressured to give in to the rush.

If drivers are all giving each other appropriate car length distances for a given speed, it should never feel like a rear end collision is imminent.

Mari,
Thanks for bringing up this scenario, because it is what happens in about 1/5 of bike-car collisions on PCH. Let me focus on one point in your original story:
"We were going to Surfrider for a large public event and passed the pack, the driver had the turn signal on to signify she was intending to leave the vehicular traffic lane and enter the driveway to the parking lot."

The error occurred here in the decision to pass the pack knowing that you were going to have to make a turn. The reason it felt like there was a rear-end threat is because once your driver passed the pack, waiting for them to again pass you would take too long and you would have to slow down a LOT to let them by. However, just getting off the accelerator early and staying behind them you won't have a sudden decrease in speed that exposes you to a rear-end collision while at the same time not pulling in front of the pack and hitting your brakes. If you just ease off and turn on your blinker, the car behind you will know what you're doing and decide to either slow down or move into the left lane without it being a big deal.

The reality is if you're going to have to slow down anyway to make the turn, there's zero advantage in passing the pack and every risk of causing a collision.

Mari, approaching a group of cyclists with the intent to turn right is can be a difficult scenario. I appreciate that you were choosing what looked like the lesser of two hazards. But Gary said it right: the hazard was behind you. I know how fast a cyclist or a group of cyclists can move, so I would have stayed behind. Now you know how fast a cyclist or a group of cyclist can move, so you can apply that next time around.

You also asked:

"...shouldn't bicyclists be adjusting to the safety of the area rather than expecting others to be more safe so they can continue on their training runs or recreational pursuit?"

I'm pretty sure you are implying recreational pursuits should be secondary to other uses of the road. You need to remember that our roads are public rights-of-way. The roads are there so people can get around, on foot, on a bike or in a car. Including just for the fun of it! Think about the great American family summer vacations including the drive to such places as Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon and - yes - Malibu! That's recreation. Now, bring it a little closer to home. Driving to Geoffrey's for dinner: recreation. Driving to the movies: recreation. Driving to Starbucks: recreation. Driving to Surfrider for a large public event... (I'll let you answer. Maybe you were there to vote.) In any case, I'm happy to wait patiently behind the Model-T club when they go putt-putting through town.

Great responses, Gary! Your 11:35 post was spot on. Thank you very much as I believe not only did I receive answers but it brings up lots of fine points in discussions. I have been a rider, which is why I held onto this particular experience and hoped to find an answer from the 'other side' than what I felt as a passenger. If I'd been driving, I hope I'd have recognized that calming the traffic flow by slowing down behind the bicyclists would have been my first choice but it was a situation of very aggressive drivers behind the vehicle - and it was tailgating to the extreme. I was more agitated by the aggressive driving of the vehicle pack from the red light turning green rushing for position, and if I was behind the wheel I *believe* I would have simply slowed down and stayed behind the pack. The driver of the vehicle made a choice to try and accomodate EVERYONE, and in doing so it all turned out ugly.
David - Wasn't at Surfrider to vote, wasn't there for recreation either. Events have volunteers, workers, participants and press, please don't diminish the efforts of others in such a manner as I never intended to do such with my post. I do believe that recreational riding AND driving sometimes provides a level of retreat from the surrounding reality of traffic flow and possible dangers. BTW, in this town going to the movies is very often work related and you'll find people working at Starbucks while sipping their joe-bibe.

Mari, good. Definitely not diminishing anyone's choice of activity - just trying to bust another myth about hierarchies of right-of-way access based on notional 'work' vs 'play' definitions.

ok so this seems like a bit of a double standard here - while what happend might not have been polite on the part of the driver - the bikers here have made it abundantly clear that bikes are the same as cars on the road and that the shoulder is not a lane - therefore - if the car that Mari was in was in the right hand lane ahead of the pack and signled to make a right hand turn it was the cyclists responsability to give way and there resonsability to be going at a slow enough speed to be able to respond to conditions on the road. If a car was behind Mari and attempted to pass on the shoulder as she made a right hand turn and there was an accident - it would absolutely be the overtaking cars fault. While I realize that it might not be polite to pass someone and then make a turn in front of them - it seems to me that it was the cyclists who were wrong in this case.

What has become clear, after reading the documents emailed to me by Eric B - especially the "Collision Avoidance" document - is that bicyclists and drivers must place a fair distance when traveling in and out of the right lane; the driver must allow a fair distance from bicyclists while going in and out of the right lane and so must bicyclists allow a fair distance from cars when they travel in and out of the right lane. The document states: "Bicycles must: 'Always signal and merge into traffic well in advance instead of at the last minute.'" While this document does not state the same for motorized vehicles, I believe it is implied. Everyone has the same problem nowadays though and that is it seems like no one wants to let anyone in front of them. Being considerate or courteous is not the norm - albeit, since last year, I'm observing that the passing left and keeping right law is becoming more appreciated and being considerate is making drivers more alert - however, that might be wishful thinking.

Jamie,
If the collision had occurred, the driver would have been cited under CVC 22107: No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

If you turn across the path of another vehicle legally travelling straight and cause a collision with that vehicle, then you have not made the turning movement "with reasonable safety." In your example, the car passing on the shoulder would not be travelling legally, while the bicycles on the shoulder are under 21650(g).

In simplified terms, through traffic generally has the right of way over turning traffic.

Jamie, this is a situation where the cyclists look bad because they were riding on the unmaintained shoulder out of habit (which finds its source in varying degrees of fear of, and courtesy to, heavy faster-moving vehicles). Remember (going back to Susan's myth-busting above) the cyclists could have been in the right lane. If the cyclists had been in the right lane, Mari's driver would have been accused of an unsafe lane change. But as Mari mentioned, it is difficult - probably because of lack of experience - to gauge the speed of a cyclist. That experience will come with time, and with articles like Susan Tellem's. Just for thought, imagine if the right side of the fog line was in fact a designated bike lane. The result would be the same.

This is related to what Bob brings up next. The issue was the tailgaters driving aggressively behind Mari's driver(, putting the driver in genuine fear of slowing). When cars tailgate in the right lane, it is impossible for a cyclist to safely merge into the right lane, and any merge looks 'last minute' from the perspective of the tailgating driver.

Eric - I don't believe that to be the case. Mari's driver made a right hand turn from the right hand lane while properly signaling. Bikers attempting to pass traffic on the shoulder - not a lane - not a bike lane - appear to be in the wrong here legally. The driver was not crossing a right of way and we have established that under the law the shoulder is not part of the roadway. It would therefore be illegal for the bikers to be passing the vehicle in front of them either in the traffic lane OR on the shoulder.

David - if it were a bike lane the driver would have been in the wrong - as that is a right of way that a driver needs to insure is clear before moving through it. If the bikes were in the right hand lane and were cut off when the driver changed lanes the driver would have been wrong. Niether of those appear to be the case here.

I don't think it was a particularly polite thing to do but I do think it was legal as long as the driver was in the right hand lane - in front of the bikers and used their blinker.

Jamie,
The code is two parts: 1st the movement has to be safe. 2nd the movement must be signaled if it affects other traffic. The driver did not abide by the first of these two requirements and would be cited for any collision that resulted.

The shoulder is an optional use facility for bicyclists, but they still have status as through traffic. Also, the shoulder is not part of the "roadway" but is part of the "highway." I agree that the code is written murkily, but the underlying principles are still sound. Also, it is not illegal for a bicyclist on the shoulder to overtake a vehicle in the right lane. I generally advise against it, but it is not illegal--just as it is not illegal if you are traveling in the right lane and someone in the left lane slows down. There is case law on this.

Underlying this is the requirement that drivers show "due care" toward other road users. Because the driver passed a group of bicyclists, then moved in front of and braked to turn, this is a pretty clear case of not exercising due care. The safe, responsible, and legal course of action would have been to slow down (or just not pass), and move right behind the pack before turning.

With all due respect guys, from the way I am interpreting the laws CVC 21200, CVC 21200, CVC 530 and V C Section 21650, which are the one’s you are referring to as written, bicyclists are not permitted to stay in the right lane unless certain conditions are met and even then it is required that they move to the right curb as soon as possible. Malibu's PCH does not generally meet the conditions required to accommodate bicyclists to stay in the right lane. Your assumption that bicyclists have the same rights to the right lane as do motorized vehicles on PCH are wrong and I challenge you to show me where is states unequivocally that ANY bicyclist has the right to STAY in the RIGHT LANE used by motorized vehicles unless certain conditions are met. Look, I’d like to promote safety for bicycles too but promoting the right to use the right lane same as motorized vehicles is promoting dangerous behavior and does not serve the community with it’s traffic problems and especially the preponderance of accidents that occur in the right lane that we all want to reduce, if not stop.

Jamie, in any case it might be helpful to remember that the cyclists did not pass Mari's driver on the right as much as Mari's driver overtook them on the left before exiting the highway in front of them.

From Mari's original post:

"...the driver came upon a large pack of bicyclists (twenty plus riders) right before Surfrider parking lot. We were going to Surfrider for a large public event and passed the pack, the driver had the turn signal on to signify she was intending to leave the vehicular traffic lane and enter the driveway to the parking lot."

Bicycling is great done in the proper place and this area of PCH is so problematic, especially for a pack of 20 bicyclists traveling east, I have to wonder why do you guys think it's the proper place for a pack of 20 bicyclists on a weekend when there is an event going on at Surfrider? Was there a permit for a pack of 20 bicyclists? Were there police escorts? This area of Surfrider Beach and the entrance to the parking lot has heavy traffic on a weekend, let alone having an event there on a weekend. Then they are heading east into the most intense area of town. WRONG! WAY WRONG!!!

Bob, the shoulder is an optional use facility for bicyclists to ride, and bicyclists are allowed on any highway except where expressly forbidden, such as most freeways, but only if alternative routes exist. Therefore cyclists are allowed to use the right lane. The law doesn't always spell things out word for word, it is deliberately flexible and open to interpretations, which have had precedents in case law for as long as vehicle laws have existed, which was before cars were invented. No one is going to sit here and rewrite the book Bicycling And The Law, and spell out every legal case on Patch, if you really cannot take our word for it, than do the research for your self.

The majority of bicyclists on PCH ride the shoulder when it is wide and clear enough to do safely, but under the law they are not obligated to do so, and there are a number of sections where the shoulder is too narrow, too poorly taken car of, or full of parked cars. Cyclists are obligated to ride as far to the right of the roadway (the shoulder is not part of the road way) as practicable, which also allows for certain conditions in which cyclists can ride further into the lane.

If cyclists were to be excluded from use of the right lane without a bike lane, which would violate state law, it would also restrict access for cyclists, and violate supreme court precedent for the right to the travel. Even where bike lanes are present, if obstructions exist in bike lane, cyclists may use another lane.

Sheesh! Enough already, you're beating a blown tire! To further clarify, not only was the driver too far from the driveway to begin tailgating the bicyclists by entering the shoulder behind them, I even had my own hand out the passenger window making turn gestures along with the driver's turn signal on. I should have mentioned that another concern was the lack of awareness of many of the pack riders as they were gazing out upon the ocean rather than watching traffic patterns, or watching the leader.
This is a situation that you can debate till the cows come home but I hold steadfast to the knowledge of being there in the situation while all of you are pretending to plot it out in your minds today. Why is it that we don't see any recognition of bicyclists in packs needing - for their own safety - to be aware at all times of the traffic flow and egress/ingress areas? Another example is Bob Purvey's situation of the upcoming incline near Geoffrey's, the responses of the bicyclist supporters seem to avoid the obvious equality that they request - why does the pack "naturally" group up when coming to an incline? Shouldn't pack riders also be aware of the upcoming road conditions and terrain so as to prematurely slow down to accomodate the needs of the front riders natural slowing down??? A vehicle approaching a pack of riders must be prepared for the actions of every member of the pack while bicyclists are watching what? Few bicyclists use mirrors, why?

"Bicycling is great done in the proper place.."

Bob, You are now stepping into the realm of defining your own world view as what should be the law or the rules, but that is not how democracy works. If you don't want bicyclists having the right to travel, than you are welcome to pursue your case with politcla and legal systems, but so long as bicyclists rights exist as they do, you are obligated to respect them.

The heavy traffic congestion in some areas at peak times that you're complaining about is not the fault of bicyclists, it is the fault of drivers, and if you are a driver going into a congested area, than frankly you are part of the problem. Imagine if the 20 bicyclists instead were a club of classic car enthusiets, or a pack of motorcyclists, how much more space of the roadway they would have taken up. Drivers should be thankful that some people are willing to make the effort to travel and enjoy the world by bike without competing for nearly so much roadway space or parking space.

Should bicyclists call ahead of time to any place along a desired route which may have heavy traffic and simply ride somewhere else if they are busy? Your line of logic is to strip bicyclists of their rights. If stripping the rights of those who wish to travel by bicycle is your agenda, you will find cyclists will not stand quitely by and allow that to happen. Good luck in Sacremento with your case to restrict access for bicyclests to a historic bike route.

Mari,
You're right that I wasn't there and so I can't judge what distances were between whom. All I can do is give the relevant code and interpretation based on studying these issues more than I care to admit. This response was simply to Jamie's assertion that a bicyclist on the shoulder has no legal standing to not be cut off. So to that end, it was a response to her version of the scenario and not directly back to yours.

As far as "grouping up" at hills, that was intended to be an explanation of what happens and why, not to say that bicyclists are able to do whatever they want. In a perfect world, bicyclists would not move laterally without signalling and making sure it's clear. In a perfect world, car drivers would pas with ample lateral clearance and wouldn't cut off bicyclists to make a turn. In a perfect world, both would look around themselves and anticipate hazardous situations before they occur.

What we're doing here is trying to explain where the rights and responsibilities lie with each group and add some clarity so that we can avoid conflicts in the future. The advice is lopsided because the audience here on the Patch is mostly drivers. Furthermore, by a 3 to 1 ratio, it's drivers' violations that are causing collisions with bicyclists. I'll gladly beat a blown tire if it keeps a single person out of the hospital.

However, your description of events keeps changing. If you really were close enough to the group before the turn that you felt it necessary to stick your arm out the window as a passenger, then your driver grossly misjudged the situation. As a bicyclist who's been on the other side of that, it is one of the scariest things you'll ever encounter. No amount of situational awareness can prepare you for a 30 to 0 deceleration in a peloton. That is how people end up in the hospital.

My recommendations based on I think what we are saying is that bicyclists need a bike path from Pepperdine to Zuma along side PCH, then a bike path traveling along the pedistrian path at Zuma, then a bike path back onto PCH to Oxnard. Bike paths should be on both sides of the highway. This gives bicyclists a 20 mile stretch of bicycling on both sides of PCH within Malibu. "Bike Packs" should be limited in size on the weekends and limited to a different size during the week, unless otherwise permitted. Restricted bicycling from Pepperdine to Topanga, used only by locals for local commutes. Absolutely no bike packs from Pepperdine to Topanga, unless authorized by permits. I urge the city to place cameras on the highway to monitor cars and bicycles. Bicyclists must be licensed by the city for bicycling within city limits.

Also, I think a "Bike Pack" should be defined as more than two bikes.

I suggest that the "Collision Avoidance" manual gets updated to include speeds and distances, which would help to promote safety where speeds are higher than on city streets and other urban areas, such as on PCH in Malibu.

Susan: I was going 40 mph in the right lane and the Racer darted out of a pack of Recreational bikers, into the right lane, about 20 feet in front of me at about 30+ mph. Are you condoning this action by the racing biker?

Steve, I whole heartedly agree that we have to make the right lane the one lane that both cars and bicycles must work together to protect and make safe for both vehicles. I am sure that you also agree we have a dysfunctional right lane and we have to fix this problem for everyone. Neither car nor bicycle owns the right lane. Both vehicles must adhere to the speed laws and common laws. When it comes to the right lane, neither should be speeding, including bicycles. I believe it would be safer for a bicycle to yield to a car than a car yielding to a bicycle in most circumstances, considering that a car can easily travel 45 mph and a bicycle has to race to travel 37 mph. I want to share the road but I see an irrational "I own the road" attitude from bikers and a I want to accommodate bikers attidtude from car drivers but how can I when I see them breaking the law?

Bob, you are kind of stuck on the bad apples! That they perturb you doesn't excuse you from acknowledging the rights and responsibilities that most of us - including you I suspect - really want to see become the mainstream PCH behavior. Look, these discussions can too easily descend into a tit-for-tat comparison of poor cyclist and motorist habits. We know the scofflaws need to be educated (or warned, fined and maybe jailed!) But let's focus on those of us who can - and will - share the road appropriately. That's how Malibu builds an asset out of a mess.

"Neither car nor bicycle owns the right lane."
While this is true in spirit, we have laws that assign right-of-way so that cars and bicycles won't occupy the same place at the same time. The law assigns right-of-way to the vehicle or bicycle ahead of you in your lane, no matter their speed. If your rate of speed prevents you from yielding to someone with the right-of-way, then you are traveling too fast for conditions.

Sorry Bob but it is you wh0 has an irrational "I own the road" attitude. It is very easy for you to move your car into the left lane to pass. It is always the responsibility of the traffic doing the passing to pass safely. The traffic in front always has right of way. Do you have some sort of OCD based need to stay in the right lane or something?

I see motorists break the law numerous times every single time I'm out on the road. Exactly how are bicyclists worse that motorists when it comes to regard for the law? Bicyclists are a lot less likely to kill or seriously injure another person.

Eric B, when you enter onto a freeway from an on-ramp you are required to "Yield to On Coming Traffic" that is because you are the slower of the two. It is also the safer response. That's because it is easier to slow down a slow moving vehicle than a fast moving vehicle. Look, I don't want to argue this point, which is that a bicyclist darted out in front in front of me, not, as you are putting it: "right-of-way to the vehicle or bicycle ahead of you in your lane, no matter their speed." I had 20 feet (not 3 to 5 feet) to react when he darted out in front of me and I was traveling below the speed limit at 40 mph with cars beside me and behind me. I have no argument with right-of-way with a bike or car in front me - that's not the issue I am addressing.

The 3 to 5 feet I'm talking about in this instance is horizontal clearance. The point is that leaving enough horizontal clearance generally gives everyone enough room even if someone makes a "bonehead" move.

OK, I get it, you had a bicyclist jump out in front of you and you're not happy about it. Individuals make mistakes all the time. For whatever reason, you want us all to answer for one guy that made one bad maneuver. We are all speculating as to why he may have done it, but it's just that--speculation. Unless you want to be held responsible for every car driver that makes a mistake, I suggest you move on.

Perhaps you can answer the question I posed earlier: Are Bicyclists required to register their bicycle and tested for a license?

Bob, the California Vehicle Code authorizes local municipalities to require and charge a nominal fee for registration of bicycles. Some do, some don't.

Your question about cyclists being tested for licenses is the place where you are going to have to 'take a deep breath' and have a real big think about why people who ride twenty-five pound bicycles on our public rights-of-way are not required to be licensed, but people who drive several thousand pounds of Detroit steel on our public rights-of-way are required to be of a certain age and demonstrated competency...

There are two questions there.

Licensing, I addressed before, but I'll repeat here: Every bike racer I know is also a licensed driver. As this article points out, having a card in one's wallet doesn't mean one knows every detail of the vehicle code or we wouldn't have needed to write this article.

Licensing is done to ensure that those that pose a danger to others have at least a modicum of knowledge. Bicyclists pose little danger to others as it is usually they that end up severely injured in a collision should one occur. For drivers, the risk is external--with those outside the car more at risk from mistakes. For bicyclists, the risk is internal--the bicyclist is most likely to suffer from the consequences of their mistakes. This is the rationale for licensing one but not the other. But, as I said, the vast majority of bicyclists have a drivers license.

Registration: Some cities require bicycle registration, but the primary purpose of this is to help recover stolen bikes. Because these programs generally cost more than they take in in fees and serial numbers are more valuable than license numbers for police, many cities (including LA recently) are discontinuing their registration programs.

Good argument David. Hate to rattle your cage kid but, since we are discussing use of "twenty-five pound bicycles" on the same road, with the same rights as a "several thousand pounds of Detroit steel on our public rights-of-way", being required to "share the road", don't you think the same rules should apply? If not, then explain to me why we separate pedestrians from the roads and baby carriages from the roads, and skateboards from the roads?

Licensing is often incorrectly assumed to grant greater rights when in fact, legally and historically, the opposite is true. All people have the right to travel on the public way. This right is derived from case law as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, this right does not include the right to travel by conveyance that exposes others to substantial risk. In all 50 states, legislators determined that the risk posed to others by motor vehicle travel warrants a greater degree of skill and certification by the state--a license. Thus, travel by whatever non-motorized conveyance is by-right, but travel by motorized conveyance is by permission of the state.

Besides that, "pedestrians, baby carriages, and skateboards" are all on PCH without separation given that there are no sidewalks on most of the highway.

Eric B, you stated: "Unless you want to be held responsible for every car driver that makes a mistake, I suggest you move on." Laws are meant for us to be held responsible. We don't want mistakes that cause accidents, which is why we have laws, to teach people and hopefully prevent accidents. Making PCH safe for bicyclists is the primary reason for this discussion here. Nevertheless, the discussion is also NOT about giving up the right lane of PCH to irresponsible bicycling. We have a lot of hazardous situations on PCH for the motoring public and radical bicyclists are not helping. I'd hate to see the loss of a safe and fair use of the highway for bicycling enthusiasts just because a small bunch of racing bicyclists are radicalizing the situation for their own selfish interest. They have to be reigned in but in a fair way. The issue about this guy darting out in front of me is an important issue and should not be minimized. Let’s move on…I’m with you on getting a bike lane designated but not at Zuma and east of the Ralph’s parking lot – these areas should be restricted and not before licenses and registration is required.

We don't separate pedestrians from the road in a blanket fashion, Bob. We exclude drivers from leaving the driving lane and driving on the sidewalks built on the public right-of-way, except for as is needed to access property (for example, driveways in to parking lots and homes).

I'm trying to get you to run your analysis using the concept of 'right-of-way' instead of 'road'.

Bob, the right lane does not belong to drivers of automobiles exclusively, so I cannot see how anyone is losing any kind of "right" to it. There are cyclists who ride irresponsibly, and they can and are ticketed just as drivers. Laws apply to everyone.

You can not require a licenses to qualify for riding a bicycle without overturning supreme court precedent, and the vast majority of bicycle riders are also licensed drivers in any case as Eric has pointed out.

As for "radicalized racers", I think the much bigger threat to public safety are racing drivers and motorcyclists. These fast bicyclists are still well within the speed limits. I think the biggest risks though are really distracted drivers.

As for the particular case of a cyclist darting in front of you, this cyclist may have well clearly been in the wrong, but drivers are quite often in the wrong on PCH as well. One party breaking the law does not justify it for anyone else, or negate the rights of others.

On my blog I created a graphic demonstrating how to appropriately signal intentions and gave ample time to drivers when needing to leave the shoulder on PCH, and always encourage safe and best practices to others. If there are cyclists who clearly break rules and ride in an unpredictable manner, they can and should be held responsible just as anyone else on the road, but police are are understandably stretched thin, and priorities tend to go toward the offenses that pose the greatest risks to other.

Gary, pointing fingers in the opposite direction does not solve the problem, it distracts. Let's get back to the issue of licensing bicyclists and getting license plates on their bikes. We have to get to share the road in an equitable manner. You seem to be mixing apples and oranges when you and Eric indicate that a driver's license is qualifications for riding a bicycle on PCH. It seems that if a bicyclist has the right to travel in the right lane just like a motorized vehicle, then the bicycle should be registered and operated by a licensed rider who abides to the rules of the road, knowingly. Look, even horse carts have to be registered and operated by the owner or someone who is licensed to use certain public roads. I see this as a way to reign in those radical racers and make bicyclists more aware of the rules. I also see this as a way to make the rules more coherent not only for the bicyclists but for the drivers.

There is no separate set of laws for bicyclists and drivers so I'm not sure how a separate bicycle license would add anything to their understanding of the same code. The underlying point is your questioning of a bicyclist's legitimacy in operating on a public street in accordance with the law. That has been asked and answered from a historical, legal, and practical approach and is beyond the scope of this article, which discusses how to share the road under existing law.

There is an underlying statistic that has changed the PSC's focus from "educating bicyclists" to "educating everybody": 75% of all bike-car collisions on PCH are determined to be the driver's fault by the investigating officers. By and large, the factors are DUI, speeding, distracted driving, and improper turns.

Clearly, by a 3-to-1 ratio, the problem here is undereducated drivers rather than undereducated bicyclists?

Your proposals do nothing to address the actual causes of collisions and everything to blame the people that are getting hit by irresponsible drivers. No licensing proposal will address these underlying issues, but is very much punitive toward the wrong target.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand, which is how bicyclists and drivers are expected to share the road under existing law.

Eric, you bring up some interesting information. Can you please direct me to the case law that addresses "the bicyclist's legitimacy in operating on a public street in accordance with the law that has been asked and answered from a historical, legal, and practical approach"? Also, I'd like to read up on any factual substantiation supporting your statistical information. To obtain a California driver's license for a motor vehicle requires taking a test to determine the knowledge of laws pertaining to the use of your motorized vehicle on public streets and freeways and the applicable laws.

Susan Tellem, here, wrote in referrence to getting the following information from you: "Bicyclists are given all the rights and responsibilities of drivers of a motor vehicle, including the right to ride on the “roadway” (which we already determined does not include the shoulder). The law requires bicyclists to ride “as far right as practicable” except in a number of situations. One of these situations is when the lane is too narrow for a car and bicycle to safely share a single lane. The travel lanes on PCH are too narrow to share in all but a few places, meaning that a bicyclist in the right lane may ride in the center of it. This position is safer for everyone because it increases the bicyclist’s visibility and prevents unsafe passing." Please clarify this statement?

Also, your statement: "There is no separate set of laws for bicyclists and drivers..." I believe is in referrence to my statement regarding rules of the road, however, your statement defies logic. Bicyles are not allowed in the left lane/passing lane while traveling down the highway. Bicycles are not allowed on freeways. There are many instances where laws that apply to cars don't apply to bicycles. While I agree that educating car drivers that slow traffic is in the right lane, be alert and prepared to react to bicyclists when around bicyclists is ultimately important here, we also have a double edged sword and if we don't address both sides of the right-lane-safety issue, neither one will get fixed.

You also state: " Your proposals do nothing to address the actual causes of collisions and everything to blame the people that are getting hit by irresponsible drivers. No licensing proposal will address these underlying issues, but is very much punitive toward the wrong target.

Now let's get back to the topic at hand, which is how bicyclists and drivers are expected to share the road under existing law."

What are your proposals to make PCH safer?

The data I am referring to is a study that was conducted from 2005-2009 of traffic collisions that occurred on PCH in Malibu's jurisdiction. It is publicly available from the SWITRS database, or you can contact me offline.

The rights and responsibilities clause is CVC 21200.
The roadway is defined in CVC 530.
The "as far right as practicable" clause and exceptions are found in CVC 21202.

Rules for both bicyclists and motorists are in the California Vehicle Code, knowledge of which is required to obtain a license. Thus, in theory at least, all people that have obtained drivers licenses are intimately familiar with the CVC. There are laws that specifically address bicyclists, but none that exist outside the realm of the "vehicle code."
"What are your proposals to make PCH safer?"
1) Make the best of the current situation by educating everyone of their rights and responsibilities under the law.
2) Work with the PSC and Department of Public Works on planning for a multi-modal corridor. This is underway and I'm sure news will be published on this site as progress is made.

If you want to really dig into U.S. bicycling law, it's history and precedent, to the current times, and problems and legal issues effecting cyclists, relevant supreme court cases, etc. the comment section of Patch is not going to be sufficient. I suggest reading Bicycling And The Law by bicycling lawyer Bob Mionske, a former U.S. Olympic and pro cyclist who went on to become a lawyer specializing in bicycle cases. The book is dense, but well organized, with different topics broken into separate chapters and a thorough index.

The SWITRS database is for government use only. You can email the report to me at bobpurvey@aol.com

Eric, I don't doubt the concerns you raise and totally appreciate them. You are doing a good job of informing the general public and this article has lent to that aim. While you may think that I am trying to demonize bicycling on PCH, which is not my intent, I too want to make PCH a wonderful and safe experience for bicyclists, from recreationalists to professionals. The difficulty lies in a congested PCH traffic situation that is going to get worse before it might get better.

Thanks, Bob.
If anyone else would like a copy of these materials, send me a note at ejfbruins (at) gmail (dot) com.

"Jungle rules" = the California Vehicle Code that allows and expects bicyclists to ride in the right lane, particularly when presented with hazardous conditions.

This is a two-way street:
Bicyclists need to do a better job of making predictable movements. This means looking ahead, expecting conditions that will require moving into the right lane, giving hand signals, and merging into traffic. I'm the first to admit that many bicyclists don't do a good enough job of this.

Drivers need to look for bicyclists and expect that they may be in the right lane. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder and coming up to a parked car, then the driver should expect them to move over--that's not difficult, but does require some degree of anticipation. Much of the "darting" I see (remember that I drive PCH all the time too) is bicyclists reacting to hazards in a foreseeable manner and drivers not leaving adequate passing distance in the first place which then requires an abrupt reaction.

There's an underlying assumption throughout your posts that bicyclists don't belong in the "vehicle" lanes and need to stay out of the way of cars according to "common law." This is demonstrably untrue as explained by the article and the multiple bicyclists posting here. I don't know how to explain this in any other way besides taking you out on a bike on PCH and letting you experience this from the other side.

Eric, when I refer to "Jungle Rules" that's in addition to good, bad, old and common laws. Also, I am infavor of bicyclists sharing the road (even though it's a highway) and I have made some propositions to solve the problems I have observed. I have stated that cars and bikes should share the right lane with the caveate that rules should apply, certain areas on PCH should be restricted (ZUMA and East of the Ralph's parking lot, a bike lane should be designated and I think what you may be reading into my posts is that I am opposed to bicycle racing until we come up with some rules of the road. We already have official bicycle races when PCH is shut down in certain areas. There are areas where letting it all out makes sense but right now there are jungle rules when it comes to racing bicycles all over PCH in Malibu.

"I think what you may be reading into my posts is that I am opposed to bicycle racing until we come up with some rules of the road."
These rules exist and protect everyone. They are called the California Vehicle Code and they govern all movements on the highway. In particular, they assign right-of-way in just about every possible scenario. They are also the rules by which investigating officers assign fault in the event of a traffic collision. In this entire conversation, you are the only one here that has been at all resistant to following them, preferring to suggest your own version that everyone else should follow.

Also, you seem to not know the difference between "racing" and "riding". Racing involves an organized event on a sometimes closed course. This requires permits from the appropriate City, County, or State agencies. Riding is what we do on the road every day, be it by ourselves, with a couple friends/teammates, or in a group. There is nobody "racing" in eastern Malibu--they are riding to local coffee shops or remote canyon roads and all destinations are equal under the law.

I think anyone who has been following our exchange knows that I am referring to radical racers outside the realm of an athletic event. I also, do not understand where you get that I do not follow the law - please referrence any statement I have made that indicates that to you.

You have created a grouping "radical racers" with no description or usefulness for conversation. This is a typology that is intended to let you go after a perceived villain, but contributes nothing to the discussion.

If you would like to clarify whether a particular behavior is legal or why someone may ride a certain way, then ask a question. If you want to assert that rogue groups are taking away your right to drive unimpeded in the right lane of the highway, then there's nothing we can talk about rationally. Which is it?

Radical Racers is a term that comes to mind when I try to describe those individual bicyclists who are going to ride fast no matter what, weave in and out of traffic, people and other bicyclists without concern for anyone. There are no rules that currently exist to reign in these types and there can be.

Steve, please do not misunderstand my objection to radical racers. I separate them from the real athletes who I very much appreciate. I support your efforts to make the area safe for your training purposes. I would like to help in anyway that I could. Nonetheless, please appreciate my concern that we have a highway principally used for the motoring public and it is hazardous for the most part. I agree that alertness is key to making the highway safe and lack of proper laws and enforcement allow for many distractions while driving, which probably account for most of the accidents. Rest assured that I am just as concerned about unsafe drivers who lack courtesy as I am about radical racing bicyclists.

amen!

the laws regarding this have already been discussed - the cyclists had the legal right of way. Had An accident happened, you likely would have been cited and faced legal and civil consequences. As already said, just yield the lane and pass in the left lane. Its not that hard.

I could be missing something, but to my knowledge no one has defended the fact that the cyclists in that case did not signal their intentions. I always encourage fellow cyclists to be as clear and deliberate of their intentions to move or shift lane positions as possible, which is all the more critical somewhere like PCH with higher vehicle speeds and thus less reaction time.

Your statements like "makes me want to abolish the "Share the Road" campaign and ban all bicyclists from Malibu's PCH" are quite revealing. Thankfully you cannot do this because as has been explained numerous times, such a ban would be violating supreme court precedent defending the right to travel.

No doubt there are cyclists who do boneheaded things on occasion, and some can be rude at times as well, and those issues should be addressed, but clearly so is the case with many drivers. The problem drivers cause the vast majority of horrific string of tragedies that is all too common on PCH. As Eric pointed out a study showed driver fault in most PCH collisions involving cyclists, and there are numerous car to car, and car to pedestrian collisions. In some cases people have died just walking well off the roadway, and someone drove off the road and just takes out a life in seconds. However what you have not heard from anyone here is banning drivers right to travel because of the actions of some drivers. Banning the right to travel under your own power is not a solution, not in a free country anyway.

It is clear that to not appreciate the shortcomings of the bicyclists in this situation is idiotic. I read the statistical information Eric B emailed me regarding car/bicycle collisions and about 25% are the fault of the bicyclists. Not 2%, not 10% - 25%! That is not an insignificant number. A company can fail on the loss of 25% of its revenue. We should start to address the issues of bicyclists failing to follow the laws. I feel that the "Share the Road" campaign is sending the wrong message and promoting bad bicycling behavior and I suggest abolishing it. Let's be absolutely clear, I want a ban on bicycling in Malibu until the law becomes clear about distances bicyclists must observe when they want to "..merge into traffic well in advance instead of at the last minute." on PCH in the 50 and 55 mph zones. I also want a restriction on bicycling in eastern Malibu (from Pepperdine to Topanga), except for residents. I also want bicyclists to be licensed for bicycling in Malibu and bicycles to be registered and have license plates. I think Malibu can legally place these restrictions on the portion of PCH that lies within Malibu's city limits and I will check into this first thing Monday morning. The arrogance of these Radical Racers has made me reach my tolerance point. Bicyclists do not have a constitutional right to misbehave by interpreting the laws in their favor. Try to demonize me if you wish but I think I have been transparent all along.

Let me be also absolutely clear, you cannot ban bicyclists on PCH, and what some of us are trying to do is make PCH work better for everyone and all users, through education and hopefully engineering as well, but for the moment Caltrans seem reluctant to physical changes to the highway that would make cycling safer.

Bob, you clearly do not understand how the freedom to travel works, or how rights and access to public roads work. You cannot ban anyone who is not a resident from traveling on public roads. If you would prefer an environment that can ban such things, I suggest you find a gated community with privately funded roads.

As for requiring bicycle registration, local jurisdictions can require this, but with a number of restrictions outlined in state law. The purpose of bicycle registration laws as they exist, was really a tool for bicycle theft recovery, and has nothing to do with operating a bicycle. One of the restrictions under state law for bicycle registration, is that a local jurisdiction can only require bike registration stickers on bikes for it's own residents. If Malibu pursued it's own bicycle registration program, it could only give out tickets violating the requirement to Malibu residents. If you do not believe me consult C.V.C. Division 16.7 - Registration and Licensing of Bicycles.

I'm not trying to demonize anyone, I am simply trying to set the record straight on how the law works and pertains to bicycling.

Bob,
By your logic, we should ban cars on PCH because they are responsible for 75% of this type of collision (and nearly 100% of all other types).
The guide you are referring to is a balanced set of techniques that both drivers can bicyclists can use to avoid the most common types of collisions. Just as defensive driving is aimed at reducing collisions whether or not they are your fault, that guide contains many defensive bicycling techniques to avoid collisions regardless of fault.
If you want to understand the statistics you are looking at, you need to further subdivide bicycle-fault crashes:
8.7% of bike-car collisions are when a bicyclist swerves
4.3% of bike-car collisions are when a bicyclist is at fault during a turning conflict
6.5% of bike-car collisions are when a bicyclist rides against traffic

I am working on the 13% of collisions that are caused by poor movements by "radical racers", whatever that term means.
That 6.5% of wrong-way collisions are locals that feel like PCH is so hostile to their bicycling that they ride against traffic. They perceive it to be safer to see traffic coming at them because the highway doesn't make them feel safe to ride properly. I am working on the engineering changes to make riding safely also feel comfortable.
Now, can you spend just a bit of your energy on the 75% rather than attacking "racers" for the 13%?

First of all let's get something abundantly clear, PCH was not built for bicycles, it was built for the motoring public. The laws that apply to the use of PCH relate to the motoring public for the most part. The motoring public pays for the use of PCH. Car registrations pay for the upkeep of PCH. Do bicyclists pay for the upkeep of PCH? If bicyclists want to Share the Road, perhaps licensing and registration could help? Since you are suggesting to ban cars, based on your rational, should bicycles take over 100% of the highway's maintenance?

I am glad you are looking at the big picture incrementally. This is the purpose of this exchange I hope. Both cars and bicycles have a responsibility to help make PCH safe and we have to look at how the situation can become safer for everyone. I don't see this as a car's rights story like some are trying to characterize it. Complaining about the problem without trying to offer solutions does nothing.

We see that "Radical Racers or "Weekend Warriors" or whatever you want to call those guys who want to get going and keep on going and disregard the laws of yielding to cars as a problem. I think that the Share the Road campaign is worsening that problem and it must be changed. Educating is the fix. Alertness is what we all want. Courtesy is what we all want. Understanding safe distances is what we all want. Appropriate places for traveling, both car and bicycle, is what we all want.

Another very common myth, is that drivers "own the roads" and cyclists do not paying to use them. Roads are public, no one class of users "own" them, but even if how much were paid for the road by a class of users were a product of ownership, drivers would really own about half of the roadway. I don't know if there is specific studies on source of funds for PCH, but the National average in the U.S. is that driver specific fees, like vehicle registration and gas taxes, pay for about half of roadway construction and maintenance.

As for the suggestion that bicyclists do not pay for their use of the road, this is not true for a few reasons. First of all most cyclists are also them selves drivers and already pay all the fees all drivers do. To lay another set of taxes just for bicyclists to be allowed to the road would in effect be double taxation on all cyclists who are also drivers, which is most cyclists. As I mentioned drivers really only pay for about half of their costs on road and highway construction and maintenance. The rest comes out of general funds, special sales taxes, property taxes and revenue sources all citizens pay into. Lastly cyclists use less roadway space and produce almost no wear and tear on the road, requiring negligible maintenance. Road damage is a product of vehicle weight on an exponential curve, meaning very heavy trucks do significantly more damage, and bikes do about no damage to the road.

Gary, if a licensed vehicle driver with a registered car has to register their motorcycle or RV or boat, then why should a bicyclist be excluded from the registration and licensing process that requires them to know the rules of the road and that allows them to ride on a road (highway) where they have the right to use the right lane on PCH?

Ah, the disappearing quote. This one said disobeying reasonable traffic laws is a valid and worthy means of questioning authority, or some other such rubbish.

Hans ,
Your comments are despicable,, How dare you say that I was bragging about avoiding killing a group of riders who turned into my lane without warning just feet in front of me . I was alert and thank God I was as I was already slowing by the site of such a large group who appeared well to the right of the fog lane , in an area with a wide parking width . How dare you say that It was not the reckless irresponsible behavior of the groups leader to unexpectedly steer his group into a conjested weekend traffic lane withOUT looking or WITHOUT signalling . How dare you don't give me credit for saving there lives ! I equate that particular act as pure stupidity in par with jay walking infront of moving traffic . Your insinuation of me zooming is crazy as I was just cruising and in no hurry to get any where , I had just crested the Latigo hill and all of sudden there was this group who seemed undercontrol and staying well clear of the fog line . Every driver in Malibu has encountered these groups but rarely has anyone seen such a bone head maneuver as this group made . I was scared of what happened not boastful !

If our crested the hill and could not see and calmly maneuver around the bikes in front of you, then you were clearly speeding, The California basic speed law says you cannot drive faster than it is prudent and safe. If you hit a cluster of bikes and say you could not see them in time -- ir if you cause a wreck by slamming sideways to avoid hitting a legal vehicle (or bike) in front of you, good luck in court.

Congratulations on your Ninja superpowers, and awesome vehicle brakes, averting a bloodbath on PCH. You get full credit for creating a life threatening, dangerous condition, and then saving others from the peril that you placed them in.

Scared? That is not how I read you comment. You were incensed that those people were on our road, and you were too selfish to slow down and wait 5 seconds to merge around them.

Nice job.

[Jonathan, I had to delete and then repost this because the mobile version of this drops words and sometimes whole chunks of copy.]

I was in the slow lane because I was slower than the posted speed limit and slower than the fast lane traffic who were passing me to the left . There was no reason to get in the left lane because there were no obstructions nor Vehicles ( bikes ) in my lane as the bike group was well to the right of the fog line . Are you suggesting that I should avoided the bikes who turned into ME without warning by slamming onto the vehicles to the left of me ? I did the best anyone could do in a nano second of reaction without injuries . You assume I am one of those drivers who swerve close to bikers with a hatred of bikers ,sorry but I am not ! The situation I found myself in is a daily occurrence to the average commuter . We ALL, including you , pass by bikers who are riding in the parking area . Had the group been riding single file and had encountered an object in their path they could have avoided the object by using the wiggle room between the traffic and the fog lane but when this leader tried to avoid an obstacle he forced the whole group of 3-5 abreasters to veer halfway into the slow lane without knowing there were any cars in his followers path . Chris Frost and I were trying to figure out which group this was . They were wearing white and green jerseys but it was not the La grange team , so Chris hung out at Starbucks at Trancas waiting for weeks to identify who they were but have only established that this group was a visiting team and not a regular local team

Let the reader judge about Woods' comments, and mine.

"Everyone knows now that you have fuzzy logic and you are not working on all cylinders"

That just about perfectly sums up your arguments, Bob. Just like your "pull over to the right and let speeders decide how fast is reasonable" plan, which also speaks for itself.

Eric B, I applaud you in your efforts to educate everyone and to try to make bicycling a safe and fun experience everywhere and for everyone. Thank you and please be encouraged, because, while I may appear as though I oppose your efforts in some instances that is not my intent. I agree that motorists should learn to be alert and be aware of bicyclist's rights. I agree that more needs to be done to create awareness of the rights of bicyclists. Drivers testing should include a greater understanding of bicyclist’s rights. Also, bicyclists should learn to understand how they can make a hazardous situation on PCH worse and how they can help. Bicyclists do not have an over-riding right wherein they can take advantage of a potentially tragic situation and then, if an accident does occur, blame it on a "Samson and Goliath" situation. Bicyclists must not take it upon themselves to try and teach the Goliath how to behave - leave that up to law enforcement and, like you say, move on.

Susan, thank you. This has been an education for me and a chance for me to vent and hopefully add to the dialogue and help make everything safer and more relaxing for everyone on PCH in Malibu. Thank you again.

Bob, despite your please to the contrary, your posts appear more to the point of arguing with people than understanding what they are trying to tell you. And now, you proclaim "facts" that are really not facts at all, but your interpretation and understanding of them.

Lets start here:

FACT: Bicyclists need a bike path.
Truth: FALSE. Bicyclists need motorists who abide by the vehicle code. Bike paths are often more UNSAFE than roadways, and any experienced bicyclist will tell you that. Bike lanes are often touted as a panacea, but they do little or nothing to increase safety (witness the killing of Nick Haverland in Ventura and the striking of a woman and her daughter in a very wide bike lane). What is needed, if anything, are wide, roadways with well maintained shoulders.

FACT: Motorists must become more appreciative of bicyclist's rights to use the right lane under certain but limited conditions.
Truth: That is partially true. As was pointed out to you, bicyclists are entitled to use the roadway as any vehicle is, and must remain as far to the right of that roadway as is practicable. That "roadway" does not include the area to the right of the fog line, so bicyclists have the right to be in that right lane, and motorists must pass them with a safe distance. Most bicyclists ride to the right of the fog line out of consideration for motorists. It is not a "fact" that they must do so. It is your misunderstanding.

Hi Biker395,
The collision statistics Bob is referring to are from SWITRS--the state traffic collision database. The 75-25 split is for PCH within Malibu's limits. Keep in mind that the 25% includes wrong-way riding and other practices not common among the sport-riders we mostly think about on PCH. As I explained above, just about 13% are when a bicyclist swerves or is faulted during a turning conflict (e.g. passing on the right while a car is turning)--the kinds of things sport-riders are more likely to do.

Hope this clarifies the numbers. Your explanation of the right lane was very clear! Thank you!

Back in reality, riding side by side makes bicyclists more visually noticeable which makes them safer.

California has no law requiring single file riding. California has no law requiring bicyclists to ride on the shoulder. If the lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side within the lane then CVC 21202(a)(3) exempts them from the requirement to keep far right within the lane and bicyclists can ride anywhere in the lane that they like. They're safer when they are more visible which is when they are side by side taking up the whole lane.

Riders who are skilled at riding in groups are just fine riding inches from each other at the same speed.

Try taking a safety class from the League of American Bicyclists or read Bicycling Street Smarts, Effective Cycling or Cyclecraft. Try not to comment on bicycle safety until after you've actually studied the subject.

What percentage of the weekend warriors do you consider "Skilled " ?

If groups want to consistently take up the whole lane , fine , But many of these groups do not commit to the slow lane and dart in and out of the right side of the white line in an erratic manner and sometimes without warning into heavy traffic .
I have not taken safety classes from the League of American Bicyclist but I do drive PCH everyday and am qualified to comment on the numerous lapses in Bike safety I witness .
It is surprising to me that there are not more tragic incidences , especially on weekends when you have a combo of out of town drivers looking at everything but the road and the growing number of weekend warriors who have not taken a mandatory rules of the road test at the DMV .

You are just grasping at straws looking for excuses.

I also have flashing lights and am highly predictable on my bicycle. I'm far more predictable than most motorists. Even bicyclists without safety training are pretty predictable if you are paying attention. If you leave plenty of space when passing, a small swerve from a bicyclist to avoid gravel or a pothole or whatever won't be a problem.

Where is your common sense "billdsd"? You now come upon this article that was written back in May of 2011, and has now 168 comments, and tell me I need to study and read and am being argumentative and don't know what is going on? Look through the 183 comments and you'll see in the back and forth that there were some good exchanges. Unfortunately, yours is out of place as well as your thinking that PCH is some urban resdiential street or boulevard that has traffic speeds which can easily accommodate bicycles - warped drive thinking.

"Common sense" is the reason given by people who insisted that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

I rode on a road with a 55mph speed limit and no bike lane and a narrow right lane every day for 3 years. I didn't have close calls. That's because I know how to do it in a way that makes certain that drivers see me and change lanes to pass. They added a bike lane there about a year ago. I don't feel any safer. Actually, I feel a little less safe due to a cross over conflict created by that bike lane.

You make assumptions about safety that aren't based in reality. They're nothing but your guesses. Take the class or read the books. Until then, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nope. That's common ignorance. You can choose to remain an ignorant cave man or you can get educated. It's your choice.

Exactly !!

The point is. Nobody cares enough to read it. Only your biker buddies care. To the rest of the world(and unfortunately) the bicycles on PCH are just a liability and an unnecessary hazard. After some idiot runs you over, then they may be required to read it. Your literature wont save you from the 100,000 cars that rip up and down PCH every day. Dont get me wrong, I wish it was just bikes, skateboards, and gokarts on PCH, but for now you are knowingly and willingly puting yourself in danger(which only matters if you have a family). If you die riding on PCH, does it really matter how right you are if you are DEAD???

I've been riding on major roads around southern California since 1986. If you're correct, then how am I still alive? Why don't I even have close calls?

Ignorance is not as good as knowledge. It's arrogant to pretend that you can just guess at bicycle safety and get it right.

"billdsd
7:15 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012
I've been riding on major roads around southern California since 1986. If you're correct, then how am I still alive? Why don't I even have close calls?

Ignorance is not as good as knowledge. It's arrogant to pretend that you can just guess at bicycle safety and get it right."

good for you. you are a safe rider, lucky, your # is up, or a little of each. experience possesses the proof of knowledge and from what you have posted, you are lacking the experience. "since 1986??" bwahahaha!!!...you've seen it all. pffft...I dont think so pal!

Before riding on major roads I stuck to side roads. I've been riding since 1969.

I've ridden all over the place. I've ridden in major cities, suburbs, country roads, in the mountains. It doesn't matter. When you actually know what you are doing and adhere strictly to the training, the risks are very small.

And those realities are just as much of a threat to people in cars as they are to people on bicycles. That cage doesn't protect you as well as you think.

The statistical reality is that bicyclists rarely get hit from behind. I have read a lot of studies over the years and it varies between studies but is typically between 3% and 8% of all collisions between bicycles and cars.

Bicyclists have a right to use the public roads. Learn to move over and change lanes like you would for any other slow moving vehicle.

You should be scared to ride on the sidewalk, it's 1 of the two most dangerous riding styles (The other is riding against traffic.). That being said, it's still statistically pretty danged safe.

Your simplistic uninformed opinion does not reflect reality.

I am not taking big risks on the bike. That's the part that you don't understand. I am no road warrior.

The techniques that I have learned don't depend upon motorists being intelligent or understanding bicycle safety. In fact they compensate for many types of bad driver behavior. They keep me visible. They keep me out of blind spots. There are a lot more blind spots than most people are aware of, especially on a bike. They also keep me predictable. Drivers are NEVER surprised by what I do in front of them. They might be surprised that I'm riding like that but when I move left, they know well in advance that I'm moving left. They know well beforehand when I make any lateral movement. I move like any other slow moving vehicle. You haven't studied so you don't know. Unfortunately you are too arrogant to admit that you don't know everything so you refuse to do the studying so that you could know.

It's not faith in humanity. It's understanding the risks and how traffic actually works.

That wasn't the point. The point was that I had to study mathematics in order to understand it. I had to study bicycle safety in order to understand it. I didn't invent vehicular cycling. I learned it from people who knew more than I did.

It's called studying. That's the point.

How is it that you think that you can be an expert in something that you have never studied?

So you haven't studied it at all.

You have to understand how crashes actually happen in the real world and you have to learn techniques for how to prevent them or at least make them dramatically less likely to happen. I've done the homework. You've showed up in class and tried to fake your way through an oral report hoping that nobody noticed that you didn't do the reading.

You completely fail at understanding the point.

My training in mathematics does not help me understand bicycle safety. It helps me understand mathematics.

My training in bicycle safety is why I understand bicycle safety. That was the point. The point that you missed entirely. You have to study a subject in order to understand it.

Unfortunately your poor reading comprehension is making communication difficult. I'm not sure how I could have stated it more simply. You have to study a subject to understand it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

The difference between you and me is that I learned from people who analyzed the causes of crashes and their frequency. You just make it up and pretend to know. Do the homework or stop pretending to be an expert. You pretense that you understand bicycle safety without studying it is the ultimate in arrogance.

I have over a half a million miles of driving experience in over 32 years of driving and well over 100,000 miles of road bicycling experience. I have plenty of real world experience. However, the experience is not fully understood without knowing the theories. Understanding crashes requires analysis. That something that you haven't done. That analysis is a lot more work than reading the books or taking the classes.

The mathematics thing was just a point about having to study things to understand them.

OK, proving your point should be easy them. Check out the FARS database (Just google it, I don't know if I can post links here.) This maintans records for the conditions and locations of every fatality involving autos in the USA. Show us how the fatality rate for cyclists is higher along that stetch of highway. The data is all there.

Yes - I was referring to you.

Of course, riding further into the lane (Minimum of 3 feet from the edge of the roadway...not the curb edge or the gutter.) is what every cycling safety organization I am aware of recommends because it's significantly safer than riding to the far right.

Goodgulf, it looks like hellwood is suggesting the shoulder is relevant. I don't think he's even gotten to the lane sharing issue.

He wants the educated people to "get out of the pool"...

These things take time.

Bicyclists are never required to ride on the shoulder.

Bicyclists are traffic. Why can't you just change lanes? Are all lanes but the slow lane made of red hot lava? Will you have seven years bad luck if you change lanes to pass a bicyclist?

You.

David is part of traffic. Get over it.

Just doing my bit to preserve western civilization, one public right-of-way at a time...

If he was trying to get killed, he'd ride on the sidewalk or against traffic. To lesser degree, he'd ride far to the right. But he rides with at least 3' of clearance between himself and the right of the useable lane, as is suggested by cycling safety organizations the world over.

Actually, this is a bit of a misnomer, as even the most dangerous forms of cycling that I list (In decreasing order) there are statistically pretty darned safe.

By riding in the middle of the lane bicyclists make themselves dramatically more visible and make it absolutely clear that it is not possible to pass within the lane. It's completely obvious from hundreds of feet away that you will have to change lanes to pass. That's makes bicyclists safer. It's in all of the safety books and taught in the safety classes. It also works in the real world.