ENCINITAS — There are so few bike lanes along Coast Highway 101 in Leucadia that bicyclists have to pick their poison when traveling through the area.
Bicyclists can either hug the shoulder, making them vulnerable to getting “doored” — a collision when a parked car door opens unexpectedly. Or they can move to the center of the lane and hope motorists behind them are aware of bicyclists’ right to the road.
Often both drivers and bicyclists are unaware of where exactly in the lane those on two wheels should ride. That’s where educational “sharrows” come in.
The sharrow lane markings will be painted on several stretches of Coast Highway 101 next month to remind all that bicyclists can legally occupy the middle of the road in close quarters if there isn’t a bike lane.
“The sharrows are a relatively cheap tool to help bicyclists and cars get along,” said Rob Blough from the city’s traffic engineering division.
Sharrows will be installed on the southbound lane of Highway 101 from La Costa Avenue to A Street, and also from D Street to K Street. Respectively, bicyclists and motorists going north on Highway 101 should spot sharrows from K Street to D Street, and then from A Street to Leucadia Boulevard. Within these spaces, there will be a sharrow marking in the middle of the lane every 160 feet or so, according to Blough.
Blough said the sharrows fit in nicely with a separate Coast Highway 101 repaving project that’s tentatively scheduled to begin Jan. 15 and expected to last for a week, weather permitting. Several weeks after the repaving is complete, the sharrows are scheduled to be striped on the fresh road.
Blough said traffic delays during the repaving are possible in the mornings, as that’s when the road is most congested. However, he doesn’t expect bottlenecks to be “too severe.”
“One lane will be closed at times on the 101, but traffic should flow OK,” Blough said.
As well as sharrows, there’s more in store for bicyclists.
A northbound traffic lane just past Leucadia Boulevard is being eliminated to make way for an 8-foot bike lane. Two traffic lanes will merge into one beginning at Jasper Street. About 100 yards beyond that, the bicycle lane will start at Glaucus Street and connect with an existing bike lane at La Costa Avenue. Blough noted the bike lane will be installed at the same time as the sharrows. Both projects should debut in February.
To reinforce bicycle rules, the city is also installing “bicycles may use full lane” signs on preexisting light poles on Highway 101 where bike lanes aren’t in place.
According to Blough, the final costs of the sharrows, bike lane and signage won’t be known for another week or so, because the contracts are still being worked out.
Sgt. Emory Wallace said the Sheriff’s Department will step up patrols along Highway 101 to educate motorists and bicyclists once the sharrows go into effect.
“This is going to be a transition for everyone,” Wallace said.
While drivers and motorists are getting acquainted with the sharrows, for an undetermined amount of time, fines won’t be levied against infractions. But once the grace period passes, any offenses will “be enforced accordingly,” Wallace said.
Wallace noted that bicyclists must stay to the right side of the lane when there isn’t a hazard, which includes parked cars or obstacles in the road. Also, motorists can pass bicyclists in the sharrows, but only if “it’s safe to do so and they aren’t crossing double yellow lines,” Wallace said.
Sharrows have grown in popularity in recent years. They’re currently in Oceanside, and Carlsbad and Solana Beach are poised to add them this year.
Last summer, the Encinitas City Council approved the sharrows and bike lane. Originally, they were slated to be complete in a week or so. But City Manager Gus Vina asked to hold off on implementation until after a Jan. 30 Council meeting that will review the sharrows and bike lane. According to Vina, there’s a small chance Council could tweak plans for the projects at that meeting. Should that happen, he doesn’t want construction crews to redo work that’s already been done.
“We want to avoid any costly consequences,” Vina said.
Brian Grover, chairman of the Encinitas Bicycle and Pedestrian committee, played a key role in the sharrows getting the green light from the city. To celebrate and educate residents about bike lanes and sharrows, Grover said a “fun ride” along Coast Highway 101 is planned at some point in February.
“Bicyclists feared that part of the 101,” Grover said, adding, “this should make the corridor safer for everyone. But we need more outreach to let people know how to react in the sharrows.”
This article was updated from its original posting to reflect new information presented at a Council meeting.
19 comments
Please tell me the paving is not complete on the 101 north of Encinitas blvd. It’s all one color now but besides improved cosmetics, it’s got ruts, bumps and is of poorer quality than before the project began. Please tell me we didn’t wast countless dollars on shoddy work. Hold the contractors and the city council accountable to get this fixed properly. Submit your concerns to your council member.
Nope. You are the one with the reading problem. You tried to assert, and I quote: “If they are going slower than the speed of motor vehicle traffic, they are supposed to travel along the shoulder, absent a dedicated bicycle lane.”
That is not even vaguely remotely true. A shoulder is not a bike lane. CVC 21208 ONLY applies if there is a bike lane and ONLY if that bike lane meets minimum standards in the CA-MUTCD for markings, signage and widths.
Currently, the bike lane on the south bound side opens a couple hundred feet or so south of Marchetta and extends all the way to W D Street with breaks at A St and Encinitas Blvd. Between Marchetta and A St there are many driveways, which are places where a right turn is authorized. Bicyclists are not required to ride in a bike lane when approaching a place where a right turn is authorized – CVC 21208(a)(4).
On the north bound side, the bike lane begins at D St and ends a little past A St where it splits off to a separated path which is not a bike lane since it is physically separated from the roadway (Streets and Highways Code 890.4). CVC 21208 only applies up until the point where it splits. There is currently no bike lane again until after La Costa. After the new changes go in, there will be one after Leucadia Blvd.
The new bike lane on the north bound side will exceed the minimum width from what I’m hearing and will no doubt comply with the signage and marking standards. CVC 21208 will apply there and bicyclists will not be able to use the traffic lane unless they are travelling at or above the normal speed of traffic at that time or there are hazards preventing them from safely using the bike lane or if they are preparing to make a left turn at Jasper, Diana, W Glaucus, Phoebe, W. Jason, Jupiter, Avocado, Grandview, Bishops Gate or whatever that big yellow building is that has a left turn lane to it near the north end. Approaching a place where a right turn is authorized won’t apply until they are near La Costa, since there are no cross streets on the right side along that stretch.
You need to work on your reading skills. It’s all there in the law.
Vehicle Code does apply, because whether or not there is a dedicated bicycle lane, bicyclists can legally SHARE motorist lanes if they are traveling at the same speed as motorists. If they are going slower than the speed of motor vehicle traffic, they are supposed to travel along the shoulder, absent a dedicated bicycle lane.
Further the article was misleading, because there is little or no danger of bicyclists being “doored” along the east side of Highway North 101, going northbound.
Sharrows would be far better on both sides of the highway, for bicyclists and cars going northbound or southbound, than eliminating one lane, for motorists, going northbound, which would impede and negatively impact operational characteristic adequacy of a Major Roadway, primary circulation element, which is prohibited by State law, through CEQA.
Nope. The shoulder is NOT a bike lane. As I explained and you ignored, CVC 21208 only requires bicyclists to use bike lanes which are established pursuant to CVC 21207 and CVC 21207 requires that they comply with Streets and Highways Code 891 and that requires that bike lanes meet minimum standards established by the California Department of Transportation for signage, markings and widths. Those standards are in the California MUTCD Part 9 and shoulders fail to meet those standards. They are not bike lanes and so CVC 21208 does not apply in any way whatsoever. The shoulder is not even a legal part of the roadway (CVC 530).
As Judy pointed out, when the north bound section of the 101 between Leucadia Blvd and La Costa has been narrowed to one lane for construction, it has not been a problem for traffic. I think maybe you imagine that there’s a lot more traffic there than there actually is.
I live here, and ride my bike, or walk, or drive along Highway 101 daily. There is a dedicated bike lane from A Street to Marchetta, along the railway right of way which should be extended, as has been done in San Clemente and many other cities.
The vehicle code which I quoted, WOULD APPLY to the proposed dedicated bicycle lane that would go in if one lane, northbound, is eliminated for motorists. Bicycles, going at the same speed as traffic, would legally be allowed to use NOT ONLY THE NEW DEDICATED BICYLE LANE, but ALSO the only remaining lane for northbound motorists, according to those conditions I listed. So this DOES apply. You are not reading closely, and you are the one mistaken.
Bicyclists where there is no dedicated bicycle lane, can legally use motorists lanes; this is why sharrows would be a good idea on both the east side, northbound and the west side, southbound, of Highway 101. The bicyclists who went before the Traffic Commission asked for Sharrows, NOT lane reduction on Historic State Highway 101. Also, the Sharrows, ONLY, went before the Environmental Commission.
So the Vehicle Code does apply, with respect to the proposed bicycle lane. Current law allows for bicyclists to share motorists’ lanes, providing they are traveling the same speed as traffic. If they are going slower, and there is no bicycle lane, I feel they voluntarily, “stay to the far right,” as I do, although I take one way northbound Neptune, when traveling North! You are trying to pick at my arguments, finding fault, not addressing the basic issues.
Forcing all northbound motorist traffic into only one lane would effectively “wall out” those attempting to turn left, from streets west of the highway, northbound onto North 101, would cause more traffic congestion, which lasts longer, more cut through traffic through our neighborhoods, and would slow already subpar response time by emergency vehicles!
The “lane-diet” concept does NOT balance the needs of the elderly and the disabled, residents adjacent to the North 101 Corridor, or local commuters and tourists, with the needs of a few bicycle enthusiasts. As I said, we, and others we’ve spoken with, who are bicyclists, favor Sharrows on BOTH sides of the highway, but NOT lane elimination!
The cyclists asked for a bike lane. It has no effect on motorists or pedestrians to ad one. There is already one lane at Swamis and has no effect on traffic. There are no intersections to effect the movement of traffic. Cyclists making left turns in the turn out do not effect the movement of traffic. Putting in a bike lane has nothing to do with the Environmental Commission. Traffic Engineers do this all the time when appropriate. No one is walled out as there are left turn pockets. There would be no more congestion. There would be no cut through traffic as we already see while they are doing the repaving of that section with no problems from Leucadia Blvd to La Costa. There would be no slowing of Emergency Vehicles. You are just making all this stuff up and we see through it. The cyclist of the community favor the plan as it is. You are making that up as well as we know what the cyclists favor and you are just saying whatever sounds good to you.
Whoops. Meant to type right edge.
Currently, there is no bike lane on most of the 101 through Leucadia so CVC 21208 does not apply because it only applies to places where bike lanes are present and established pursuant to CVC 21207 which requires that they comply with Streets and Highways Code 891 which requires that they meet minimum standards established by the California Department of Transportation for signage, markings and widths. Those standards are in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 9.
The relevant law when there is no bike lane is CVC 21202. However, much of the north bound and most of the south bound portion through Leucadia has conditions which satisfy exceptions in CVC 21202(a)(3) and/or (a)(4) so bicyclists can still use the full traffic lane.
I have been told to get in the bike lane many times when there was no bike lane. Some drivers think that shoulders are bike lanes. They are not. Some drivers think that parking lanes are bike lanes. They are not. Some drivers even think that the left edge of the traffic lane is a bike lane. It’s not. It amazes me the anger and excuses that some people will make to not change lanes. Is the left lane broken?
My husband, Russell, and I do ride our bikes, walk and drive our cars on the North 101 Corridor, daily. We live west of Highway 101, at the southern end of Leucadia.
We are grateful the speed limit has been reduced to 35 MPH on North 101. We feel that Sharrows can help with further slowing, by motorists. According to California Vehicle Code:
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
So if traffic is slow, as it often is during the summer, or during peak periods, when there’s stoppage on I-5, then bicyclists can legally share all motorist lane’s, providing they are going the same speed as motor vehicle traffic! The Sharrows are simply to inform motorists of bicyclists legal rights to share a lane.
Sharrows can also be effective, by helping motorists to be more aware, and by slowing traffic. So we do support them, but NOT lane elimination going northbound on a Major Roadway, primary circulation element, which is Historic State Highway North 101, through Leucadia, to La Costa.
The actual future roundabout being planned on La Costa and North 101 is supposedly a true roundabout, with a wider radius and TWO lanes? Plus the railroad is trenched, there, so many of the issues with the railroad right of way are not present, as they are, further south, in Leucadia, north of Leucadia Blvd., where the northbound lane elimination is planned.
Staff engineer, Greg Shields, maintains that: “The road diet is being installed on the north bound side in order to create a bike lane (this is the connection to the Sharrows) to accommodate the heavy volume of biking activity in the area and improve the safety.”
We have several problems with this. We don’t see heavy volumes of biking activity going northbound! Our personal experience is that most bicyclists are riding south, and mostly on weekends. Perhaps, when going north, more bicyclists use Neptune, which is a more scenic route, and which is one way, northbound, with far less motor vehicle traffic than North Hwy. 101.
In any case, Engineering, or better yet, the Traffic Commission should become involved with the question of lane elimination for motor vehicles, as it and the Environmental Commission were before involved with recommending Sharrows. The Traffic Commission could provide actual COUNTS, monitoring and measuring of the number of bicycles traveling in both directions, to verify residents’ personal observations.
The Traffic Commission could also explore, with NCTD, on which Councilmember Tony Kranz now serves, the possibility of extending the dedicated bicycle path that now exists from A Street north to Marchetta, on the east side of North Highway 101, all the way north to La Costa, WITHOUT FORCING LANE ELIMINATION ON RESIDENTS AND COMMUTERS WHO DON’T WANT IT.
We feel lane elimination will cause further traffic delays on the highway, more cut through traffic in our neighborhoods, and SLOWER EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME in an area already subpar according to City and Fire Dept. standards. Neptune and streets leading to it, West of North 101, are residential streets, with kids playing, people walking, going to and from the beaches at Stonesteps, Beacons and Grandview, plus bicyclists, dog walkers, strollers, skaters, skateboarders, all of whose safety would be threatened with increased cut through traffic! Additionally, motorists, stuck in gridlock, in frustration or road rage, could suddenly cut over, to pass, veering into the planned eight foot wide bicycle lane, further endangering bicyclists’ safety there.
Also, residents attempting to turn left, from west of North Hwy. 101, already have great difficulty doing so, as we attempt to head northbound. By forcing the same number of cars into only one lane, there will be far fewer breaks in traffic, and we will be trapped. The needs of the elderly and disabled also must be balanced with the interests of bicyclists. And, since bicyclists can still legally share the one remaining lane for motorists, going northbound, which would happen due to flooding, and big puddles, after rains, motorists would still face the same issues of sharing our one open lane with bicyclists.
A better solution would be to work with the North County Transit District, while we do have some leverage, due to the upcoming plans for double tracking, to enhance our bicycle and pedestrian paths along the rail corridor, as has been done in San Clemente. Also, Sharrows could be painted on both the west side, for southbound bicyclists, and the east side of Hwy 101, for northbound bicyclists, which lane markings would serve to further slow traffic when bicyclists are traveling in large numbers, or as we call them, “packs.” As we said, before, that usually only happens on weekends, when there often are several riding abreast, and usually, going southbound, by our personal observations. We welcome for traffic engineers on staff or the Traffic Commission to confirm this by COUNTING the bicyclists, traveling in both directions, on weekends and during the week, along North Highway 101.
Lane Elimination on a major roadway, according to the city’s webpage, http://www.encinitasca.gov/index.aspx?page=254 requires amendments to the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan, the General Plan (currently being updated) and the Local Coastal Plan, which provides environmental review according to the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, lane elimination should also be vetted before the Environmental and Planning Commissions, as well as the Traffic Commission.
The reason Encinitas has commissions is to provide some checks and balances, some separations of power, and most importantly, more opportunity for public participation. Many question the way that previous workshops have been “facilitated” and the way that data and feedback has been “massaged,” by private contractors. Better for the public to be able to give direct feedback through noticed City meetings, then at what have appeared to be, in the past, marketing opportunities favoring special interests over public health and safety, community character, and quality of life.
If removing the lane causes significant problems it will be restored. It’s just paint. Nobody wants traffic to back up.
It has already been vetted before the traffic commission.. It has passed unanimously before both the traffic commission and counsel. There is no effect of removing the lane. Work has been occurring with one lane for months and it makes no difference. From Luecadia Blvd to La Costa there are no intersections to slow traffic and the traffic continues to move in one lane with no slowing. I ride through there daily. The public.. had been at all of these counsel meeting and has already given opinions on both sides. Perhaps you should be more open minded and consider that the rest of the community may know something about it as well. There are many places along the coast with only one lane. There is one lane in both directions south of Swamis with no problem.
Judy, this is not accurate. Only the Sharrows were considered by the Traffic Commission on 6/11/12. The Sharrows issue was brought to the Traffic Commission by bicyclists, who did NOT at that time request any lane elimination. That idea was added on by Encinitas Engineering Staff sometime before the July 18, 2018 Council Commission. Please keep you facts straight! As I’ve said, and repeated, the Traffic Commission could and should help determine, as required by CEQA law, that operational characteristic adequacy would not be negatively impacted by reducing Historic State Highway Old 101 by one lane. North 101 is considered to be a Major Roadway and a primary circulation element. To take away one lane mandates amendments to the General Plan, the 101 Corridor Specific Plan and our Local Coastal Plan, which does environmental review, typically appealable to the Coastal Commission. The reason these amendments are required and that the Traffic Commission, the Environmental Commission and the Planning Commission should measure and consider, hear more public input is because lane reduction COULD negatively impact our ability to get from point a to point b, safely, and needs more time for public input, accurate counts of bicycists, and consideration of public safety on the highway and adjacent streets.
Sorry, I meant to say: That idea was added on by Encinitas Engineering Staff sometime before the July 18, 2018 Council Meeting.
Also Coast Highway near Swami’s has a completely different configuration. There are no businesses and only a couple of residences on either side of the highway where the lanes reduce to one, going each direction, there. Here, in Leucadia, we have around 3,000 residents west of North Highway 101 and a major one-way, northbound street, Neptune, used for beach access, recreational needs of residents, and pedestrians, dog walkers, people pushing strollers, skaters, skateboarders, people going to and from Beacons and Grandview, and BICYCLISTS, on a daily basis. If you do ride daily, on a bicycle, I wager you would be going northbound on Neptune, NOT on North Highway 101, as far north as you could, then you would cross at La Costa. The needs of the residents, also the elderly and disabled need to be balanced with the needs of bicyclists. Moreover, before a lane is eliminated, we should have accurate COUNTS of the numbers of bicyclists actually using No. Hwy 101 to go northbound, north of Leucadia Blvd. That is why Traffic Commission review is essential!
The City must follow it’s own protocol and the requirements of CEQA law before eliminating a lane for motorists. A better alternative to explore would be using the railway right of way to extend the dedicated bicycle path, northbound, to La Costa, which already exists to the west of the tracks from A street to Marchetta along North Highway 101.
“A better alternative to explore would be using the railway right of way to extend the dedicated bicycle path, northbound, to La Costa, which already exists to the west of the tracks from A street to Marchetta along North Highway 101.”
This is an EXCELLENT alternative!
It has been used in Solana Beach and needs to be aggresively pursued by the city instead of this video-game-computer model, cheap DEATH-TRAP, that the city is trying to allow to go forward.
This is another EXCELLENT viable alternative:
A better solution would be to work with the North County Transit District, while we do have some leverage, due to the upcoming plans for double tracking, to enhance our bicycle and pedestrian paths along the rail corridor, as has been done in San Clemente.
WE have so much wonderful FLAT land to the East of 101 that if we worked w/ NCTD and the Rail Trail we could get to make the biking and walking lanes truly beautiful, pleasant and safe for everyone!
Wow, sorry, I meant the 7/18/12 Council Meeting, above, I apologize this format does not allow for correction of typing errors! The 7/18/12 City Council meeting is when the Sharrows plan WAS BIFURCATED OR SEPARATED FROM THE LANE DIET “PROJECT,” which is actually part of the North 101 Streetscape Project. I keep repeating this, because it’s true!
Also, what should be considered relative to “operational characteristic adequacy,” for the future North 101 Streetscape Project is that with the Faux Roundabouts, several bus stops would be relocated or eliminated. Another bad idea for encouraging public transit and walkability and bicycle ride-ability.
Buses would have to go over the “Fake-about” curbs, as would fire trucks during an emergency. If one of the one lane “neighborhood traffic circles” became blocked due to an accident, traffic would become hopelessly gridlocked, and people would be trapped west of North Highway 101, unable to get out, to the highway, which also must serve as an emergency escape route should evacuation be ordered due to a melt down at San Onofre, for example!
For the City to try to phase in the lane diet before environmental review of the Streetscape Project as a whole has been completed is “sneaky,” and illegal!
Judy:
1) the lane REMOVAl has not been vetted before ANYONE …
2) It has not been passed by the Traffic Commission or even been looked at by ANY of the Commissioners not just Traffic, but also Planning and Environmental.
3) The work that took place to install the drain pipes, was temporary, and it was done at night like Councilman Jim Bond noted to Greg and cought him in his trying to feed council w/ an MISREPRESENTATION …to what a FULL LANE REMOVAl will be like for everyone that uses the road, in the community, the city, the county, and the state.
4)The Neg Dec and EIR have not been done b/c the City has not gotten the studies of the many different required steps to meet the 30% mandated level, so that then the Neg Dec can be approved or the EIR initiated..Until ALL of these steps have been met this project will not go forward..
5)Operational characteristic adequacy MUST BE REVIEWED FOR THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE BEFORE THE LCP can issue a coastal development permit. In fact, this part of the review is presently being considered by CALTRANS; more traffic analysis was requested, and we paid PELTZ AND ASSOCIATES $75,000 additional monies, bringing their contract to nearly $530,000, to meter onramps and do more studies relative to eliminating a lane, and determining the impact that would have.
FYI: EMC will not allow for a lane REMOVAl w/o a Resolution by the cc, but then the Resolution will need an amendment of the GP, LCP the N1010CSP before it can be APPROVED!
The council has approved lane-diet w/ the slurry project b/c they have been been mISINFORMED by staff of the legal issues of this step!
The proposed Round-Abouts, or FAKE-Abouts for this part of the 101 corridor, the flooding issue in particular in this area of 101, the retaining walls, the landscaping, walking path, the railroad track intersection at Leucadia Blvd. and 101, and the major road reconstruction of 101 so that it is all one level and safe to travel and walk on are all part of the Streetscape Plan that have to be put through the Neg Dec and EIR FIRST to ensure that the ROAD ELIMINATION along with all of the other steps of the
Streetscape Plan is safe for EVERYONE including you Judy! Of course after
that EIR step is approved and the necessary permits are obtained then the amendments to the GP, LCP, and N101CSP will need to be completed before the RAOD ELIMINATION can take place!
In the Streetscape Plan the road configuration from Leucadia Blvd. to La Costa Ave will be 10-8-5 ( car lane, bike lane and walk lane ) vs. in the slurry project the road configuration will be 15-8 ( car lane, bike lane..NO pedestrian walk lane ).
This very different 2 configuration between the two very different projects are due to the fact that there will not be enough room to make U-Turns to go North, and traffic will be stalled in the one car lane North so people can make a left to go to the beach, until the FAKE-Abouts via the
Streetscape Project are built.
FAKE-Abouts bc/none will meet the legal size to be called a Round About, w/ possibly the exception of the one at La Costa Ave. and 101.
Which will be so dangerous, that it will be crazy fun for you!:)
Sharrows aren’t there to slow traffic. They’re there for the safety of cyclists.
Cyclists don’t have the right or need to “share all motorist lanes, providing they are going the same speed as motor vehicle traffic.” It’s just the right lane, regardless of motor vehicle speeds, when there’s no bike lane.
Northbound bike lane is NOT a “connection to the sharrows.” The sharrows will be in the #2 southbound lane…a completely separate issue.
Re “bike path that now exists from A St. north to Marcheta” (Acually, it goes all the way to El Portal): It is not up to width standard for a bike path and it is mislabeled BIKE LANE.
From the article: “Wallace noted that bicyclists must stay to the right side of the lane when there isn’t a hazard”
Sgt. Wallace needs to read the sign. It says BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE! Does Sgt. Wallace possess basic reading skills? It’s a regulatory sign with the full force of the law.
Of course, if Sgt. Wallace actually possessed basic reading skills then he would know that CVC 21202(a)(3) and (a)(4) allow bicyclists to use the full right lane on south bound 101 from just a little south of La Costa until the bike lane opens just a little south of Marchetta. There is no place between there where the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side and there are no hazards on the right side and which is not approaching a place where a right turn is authorized and is not within 100 feet of a place where it is unsafe to keep far right.
Again, let me reiterate: Bicyclists already have the right to use the full lane here. Anyone who reads at high school level or higher and has actually bothered to read the entirety of CVC 21202 knows that.
It’s unfortunate that some people think that just because they have a badge that they don’t have to do their homework on safety or even bother to read what the law ACTUALLY says.
Sgt. Wallace, your ideas about safety are antiquated by 4-5 decades. You don’t understand safety and since the law is defined in terms of safety, you don’t understand the law. Please take a safety class from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition because you are endangering bicyclists with your bad directives due to your lack of ability to understand the law and safety.
Motorists can’t pass partially in the right lane and partially in the left lane either. Read CVC 21658. It requires motorists to operate entirely within one lane on multi-lane roads like the 101.
There is never a time when it is safe to pass a cyclist within the same lane through Encinitas. The lane is not wide enough for safe passing. In substandard size lanes cyclists are never required to move to the right of the lane. There is a passing lane here and they will not be crossing any double yellow lines. The Sherriff needs some education before he starts enforcing laws he does not understand.
Comments are closed.