Comments on: Mandatory Use Law

By: Rider risks injury to beat bike lane ticket - VeloReviews

Rider risks injury to beat bike lane ticket - VeloReviews — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 15:39:56 +0000

[…] should a car door get opened in front of them. Couple that risk with the pretense of “Mandatory Use Laws” and the dark side of bike lanes shows […]

By: Izquieta pleads guilty in OC drugged hit-and-run death; Jay Slater elected chair of BAC « BikingInLA

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 23:03:02 +0000

[…] cars is not feasible; way to think small, Congressman. Just Another Cyclist says California’s Mandatory Use Law really isn’t. Do SF cyclists consider new center lane sharrows too dangerous to use? A bicycling […]

By: Dan Gutierrez

Dan Gutierrez — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:00:00 +0000

Also note that the picture you rightly show with a question mark, since it is shown with CVC 21202 and the term bikes allowed use of the full lane is a non-standard sign with an improper regualtory message in a warning sign, with the wrong legal citation, since CVC 21202 restricts lane use rights that are granted by 21200 (and restricted to the use of the right hand lane for slower cyclists via CVC 21654).
To learn more about signs types ans usage:
http://www.trafficsign.us/
The correct sign for the message is the BMUFL = Bikes May Use Full Lane Sign, as seen in this photograph of a Sharrow installation:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1330833&l=51e2322467&id=1574017310

Sadly, mpost transportation professionals, police and bicycling advocates do not understand bicyclists’ legal rights, and wrongly assume that we are hazards (as the sign above implies, since warning signs warn of hazards) and not drivers, and the discriminatory laws like CVC 21202 and CVC 21208, further reinforce the prejudice. I would be happy to teach you about these issues, so you can be more than just another cyclist, and help edcuate cyclists and the public that we not vagrants on the road to be treated less well than other road users.

By: Dan Gutierrez

Dan Gutierrez — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:41:00 +0000

I refer you to this article I co-wrote with then League Board President Amanda Eichstaedt on the subject of discriminatory laws:
http://home.swbell.net/mpion/LAB_Equality_for_Cyclists_Dec07.pdf
, of which mandatory bike lane, shoulder use and sidepath laws feature prominently. it is dangerous to cyclingrights advocacy to imagine that Jim Crow discrimination is anything less severe. If you can’t see that a mandatory use bike lane is no different from a rights perspective than a mandatory use “colored” drinking fountain, then you are helping to reinforce the discrimination. Adding exceptions reduces the discrimination in specific circumstances, but in no way changes the fundamental problem with such laws. Also note that the original FTR law (CVC21202) had no exceptions, and neither did the MBL; those were added later by advocates in CA to reduce the discrimination (I know people who helped write the exeptions) Here’s the League of American Bicyclist Equity Statement that calls for the repeal of these discriminatory laws:
http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equity_statement_1-05-09.pdf

By: JustAnotherCyclist

JustAnotherCyclist — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:41:00 +0000

My objection is that the vast majority of folks will read “Mandatory Use” and stop there. We instead have a “Mandatory use, with some exceptions, law” Those three words can completely change the understanding of the guy in the car behind me at the intersection. The guy getting irritated becuase he thinks me being in the lane to make a left hand turn is against the law.

By: Dan Gutierrez

Dan Gutierrez — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:29:00 +0000

The law mandates use of a bike lane. The fact that it has exceptions, which can be ignored and enforced in no way nullify the mandatory use nature of the law.