A car parked on the new Los Angeles St. bike lane. Taken on a Friday morning.
It’s been a little over a week since the installation of the new bike lanes on Los Angeles Street in downtown L.A.
Riding in from Echo Park, I usually take Los Angeles Street to get to work and back home every weekday, and so far the addition of these bike lanes have made my commute slightly more relaxing as I’m not competing for road space with drivers. However, when approaching Union Station before hitting Temple St., there seems to always be a slew of cars parked and stopped right on the bike lane in front of the Police Department building, red curb or not. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this section of the new bike lane clear, as cars are even parked on the lane overnight.
Within the span of three days, I sat in front of the Police Department building for a few hours each day to study how this obstruction was affecting cyclists who were using the new bike lane. During my observation, most cyclists were able to merge back safely into the normal traffic lane with the exception of one cyclist who was almost doored by the owner of one of the parked vehicles, and two cyclists who were almost hit by approaching traffic.
Concerned with cyclists’ safety and frustrated at the parked cars, I had approached an officer a few days ago, who was just walking out from his car to ask why he had parked on a bike lane, to which he responded, “You can go around it. I can park there if I need to.” Was he right? Later that afternoon, I went home to fact-check his statement. According to California’s Department of Motor Vehicle’s website, it states, “You may park in a bicycle lane if your vehicle does not block a bicyclist and/or there is not a “No Parking” sign posted.”
Was the officer in a sense not “blocking” a cyclist from continuing on the bike lane? What exactly is “blocking” a cyclist? Does that mean cars can park in bike lanes as long as they leave space for cyclists to turn and continue ahead?
What do you think readers?
Shouldn’t the bright red curbs make the fact that it’s also a bicycle lane a moot point?
And the police should be allowed to block the lane if they’re on police business, but not for donut calls.
Jung, if you are on Flickr, or via the Metro/TheSource’s Flickr account, could you post these to:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/copsinbikelanes/
Thanks!
Hello Erik,
I don’t have access to a Flickr account at the moment. You’re welcome to upload these photos on your personal account if you’d like.
Thanks,
Jung
Aside from the fact that parking at a red curb (which, per CA MUTCD, is supposed to accompany a bike lane in all circumstances where a separate curbside parking zone is not provided) is illegal, and that adherence to traffic laws is mandatory regardless of whether one user pays more into the system than another, let’s address Steven P’s points one by one:
1. Drivers license – remember it is a privilege, not a right to drive. A license to drive is essentially a tax.
I don’t follow your logic here. The fact that in California, we require a license to operate motor vehicles on public ways but do not require one to operate a bicycle (or to walk, for that matter) would seem to imply, if anything, an *inferior*, not superior, right to travel for motor vehicles vs. bikes. In reality, both modes of travel are subject to the same rules regarding right-of-way (check out California Vehicle Code Section 21200), independent of whether the operator is required to obtain a license or not.
2. Gas – composed of local, state, and federal taxes which goes into fixing the streets and highway system
Fuel taxes go mostly toward the construction and maintenance of a massively expensive highway infrastructure that bicyclists generally aren’t allowed to use. A portion of state fuel taxes get returned to local municipalities for road maintenance, but it tends to be a small percentage of each city’s overall transportation budget, which is funded overwhelmingly by revenues from property, sales and other taxes that are a) paid by drivers and non-drivers alike and b) paid at the same rate regardless of how much or how little you drive.
Bicyclists also cause orders of magnitude less wear and tear on city streets, thus imposing much lower maintenance costs. In the end, the maintenance of most municipal streets ends up being subsidized by those who drive the least.
3. Vehicle registration and smog checks – additional taxes on car drivers
Motor vehicles have to be registered because they are a) expensive pieces of property and b) easily capable of inflicting massive damage on other expensive pieces of property (not to mention what happens when a human being gets struck by one). It’s important to be able to identify each individual vehicle and its owner so that responsibility can be assigned and restitution made in the event of a collision. Bicycles can be expensive, and pose some risks to life, limb and property, but not nearly to the same extent that is true of motor vehicles. Choosing to operate a more expensive vehicle (and paying the costs associated with it) does not confer a superior right to travel.
Smog checks are necessary to control a harmful external cost imposed on the rest of society by motor vehicle operators (i.e., air pollution and its associated health effects). We don’t require smog checks for bikes because bikes don’t emit smog-forming chemicals. Choosing to operate a more polluting vehicle does not confer a superior right to travel.
4. Sales tax on car maintenance and repairs. A new tire, sales tax. New brakes, sales tax. Oil change, sales tax.
There are sales taxes on bike maintenance and repairs too. I pay sales tax on a new tube, on on a new bottle of chain lube, on the bill for the tune-up I get at the local bike shop, etc. It costs less than maintaining a car because my bike is simpler to maintain. Choosing to operate a more expensive-to-maintain vehicle does not confer a superior right to travel.
@Stephen P – A lot of drivers have the false impression that they’re entirely paying their own way, but actually road building/maintenance (also less direct car costs: parking, pollution, injury, illness, militarism, etc.) are only partially covered by direct road user fees (gas tax, etc. that you list.) and are subsidized by general tax revenues paid by everyone, including folks who don’t drive at all. This can be seen as good news for you – you’ll never have to pay the actual cost for your driving! U.S. drivers are subsidized (at much higher levels than rail transportation or biking or walking) – hence you’re actually being incentivized to drive. There’s a lot of research on this – here’s one source: http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/09/study-highways-dont-pay-for-themselves/
I just realized I used the term “restitution” incorrectly in responding to point #3. “Compensation” is more appropriate. Gains-based recovery vs. loss-based recovery, if anyone cares about legal terms.
Can’t do much about the cops (they are gonna break every traffic law there is cause they can get away with it), but the private citizens should be towed. Maybe the no parking signs are lagging? Winnetka isn’t properly signed yet.
Obstruction of Bikeways or Bicycle Paths or Trails
21211. (a) No person may stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any class I bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist.
(b) No person may place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law.
(c) This section does not apply to drivers or owners of utility or public utility vehicles, as provided in Section 22512.
(d) This section does not apply to owners or drivers of vehicles who make brief stops while engaged in the delivery of newspapers to customers along the person’s route.
(e) This section does not apply to the driver or owner of a rubbish or garbage truck while actually engaged in the collection of rubbish or garbage within a business or residence district if the front turn signal lamps at each side of the vehicle are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side of the vehicle are being flashed simultaneously.
(f) This section does not apply to the driver or owner of a tow vehicle while actually engaged in the towing of a vehicle if the front turn signal lamps at each side of the vehicle are being flashed simultaneously and the rear turn signal lamps at each side of the vehicle are being flashed simultaneously.
Amended Ch. 517, Stats. 1993. Effective January 1, 1994.
Amended Sec. 21, Ch. 1007, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.
Amended Sec. 7, Ch. 127, Stats. 2001. Effective July 30, 2001.
California Vehicle Code as written is a little weak as it relates to blocking bikeways; however,when a bikeway with classification of class II such as depicted in the photographs in the article are paired with “No Parking” (R26 (CA) signs as prescribed by the 2012 CA Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 9 then the bikeways facility is easier to defend from such violations or transgressors of any type.
Demand safe and complete bikeways in your communities
Cheers,
And Keep on churning
Would these vehicles be allowed to park on a sidewalk? Or would this not be tolerated?