Posts Tagged ‘Vehicle Code’
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
The failings of the drivers of San Francisco are well-documented…
…but what about pedestrians - how are they doing?
Not well, based upon their behavior in the Financh and other nearby districts. Let’s take a look at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s “Safety Toolbox: Common Violations for Pedestrian-Involved Collisions” for some help:
Common pedestrian-at-fault violations
The problem is that lots of peds violate California Vehicle Code Section 21451(c) and 21456(a) without knowing it. That is, they routinely enter crosswalks immediately after their light turns green. That’s a no-no in CA unless you make sure that traffic has cleared the intersection first.
“21451(c) A pedestrian facing a circular green signal… may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.”
“21456 Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words “WALK” or “WAIT” or “DONT WALK” or other approved symbol is in place, the signal shall indicate as follows: (a) “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol. A pedestrian facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.”
Can a ped get a ticket for blocking a car? Yes, but I’ve never heard of it. Prices start at $108 - I’m sure that they can easily exceed that what with court fees and whatnot.
21451(c,d) Green Signal–Pedestrian Responsibilities $108.00
So, green does not mean go. Green means go after the intersection has cleared – this applies to pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, everybody.
The real concern for pedestrians is them being held at fault after being hit by a vehicle. The issue turns on whether the driver entered into the intersection on a red light or not. When you encounter Third Street and Market, where cars need to travel 175+ feet to clear the intersection, extra vigilance is needed. The only thing keeping most pedestrians from immediately crossing on a green is a caravan a slowly moving cars trying to clear the intersection.
So you can continue living your life thinking that cars are running red lights at every busy intersection during every light cycle, or you can learn the PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK DUTIES in California.
Your choice, ped.
Tags: 21451, 21451(c), 21456, 21456(a), cars, citation, cvc, drivers, green, intersection, law, mrket, pedestrian, red, San Francisco, street, third, ticket, Vehicle Code, vehicles, yellow
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Tuesday, October 27th, 2009
Oh how they’re mocking us in New York. Why? It’s ’cause of our stupid cell phone law (California Vehicle Code Section 23123), the one that’s not based on scientific study, the one that says there’s a great deal of difference between handsfree cell phone calls and regular old cell phone calls when driving. Are there powerful forces conspiring to prevent an outright ban on cell phone use for drivers? Yes.
Is the National Highway Safety Administration afraid to raise the issue of how it doesn’t matter if you use hands-free technology? Yes, pretty much.
You’re cold busted, legendary film producer Irwin Allen. After seeing this, my first impulse was to run up on you and do a Rambo, but then I realized that even if you had hands-free technology back in 1973, using it wouldn’t have made a difference anyway:
(Yes, this is a Rolls Royce. Thanks for asking!)
Would Maria Shriver be safer with a hands-free connection when she yaks away behind the wheel? No.
Oh well.
Tags: 23123, ban, california, California's State Religion, cell, irwin allen, Joe, Maria, National Highway Safety Administration afraid, new york times, nhsta, palo alto, phones, religion, shriver, simitian, state, Vehicle Code
Posted in cars | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
This is how outbound Market Street appeared in San Francisco this morning as Best Buy sent a parade of expensive $2500 A2B electric scooters (the Worst Consumer Products of 2009) and also inexpensive E-Zip bikes up the street. E-Zips went for $350 last year at some Wal-Marts (not that I could tell, having never set foot in one) and now $500 (and up) at Best Buy.
E-Zip in the background, A2B in the foreground. Were there a dozen or so riders in this mini, corporate Critical Mass? Something like that:
Click to expand
What do you get for you $350? Well, you don’t get high tech batteries, that’s for sure. But that’s part of the reason why it’s cheaper than the obscenely overpriced A2B and the Trek Ride+, which is being tested out these days by some of San Francisco’s elected officials. Costco also has a few dogs in the e-bike hunt, upon occasion.
Will you say “Engine*, yes. Gas No”?
Only Time Will Tell.
*Not an actual “engine” – the marketing cookies of Best Buy mean motor, but oh well.
Tags: 20, 7.3, a2b, battery, best buy, bicycle, bike, bionx, board of supervisors, bontrager, braking, City Hall, city hall cvc center, civic center, commute, currie, cyclists, David Chiu, e-zip, ebike, electric, eric mar, fx, fx 7.3, fx7.3, Gary Fisher, hub, i-zip, market, maximum, moph, panasonic, pedalic, rack, raod, regenerative, ross mirkarimi, San Francisco, street, tech, technologies, test drive, Trailz, trek, trekusa, ultra motor, Vehicle Code, wsd
Posted in bikes | Comments Off
Thursday, July 16th, 2009
Well, here they are - they’re the new (to America, anyway) Ride+ electric bikes from Trek.
First off, check out the SF Streetsblog to see yesterday’s scene of San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu and Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Eric Mar test driving these rigs at City Hall in the presence of Marin County biking legend Gary “Bury My Heart At Pine Mountain” Fisher.
Via Gary Fisher’s Twitter
See? It looks exactly like an electric bike, right?
So let’s talk about what this Trek E-Bike is not. It’s not a ridiculous, overweight, overpriced electric bike from Ultra Motor. Witness that yellow full-suspension rig on the left in this photo from Golden Gate Park? That’s an A2B:
The A2B is, basically, an electric moped. That means the whole concept is kind of an insurance/regulation scam where the pedals are mostly there to show regulators how this thing is not an electric motorbike. So, the A2B is limited to 20 MPH under Da Law.
“Electric Bicycles are defined by the California Vehicle Code. In summary, electric bicycles are to be operated like conventional bicycles in California. There are several exceptions to this. A person must be at least 16 years old, and anyone riding an electric bicycle must wear a bicycle helmet. The e-bikes must have an electric motor that has a power output less than 1,000 watts, is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on level ground, is incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the motorized bicycle faster than 20 miles per hour, operates in a manner so that the electric motor is disengaged or ceases to function when the brakes are applied, or operates in a manner such that the motor is engaged through a switch or mechanism that, when released, will cause the electric motor to disengage or cease to function. Driver’s licenses, registration, insurance and license plate requirements do not apply. A motorized bicycle is not a motor vehicle. A motorized bicycle shall only be operated by a person 16 years of age or older. Drinking and driving laws apply. Additional laws or ordinances may apply to the use of electric bicycles by each city or county.”
So, most people using an A2B would never really pedal. Personally, I’ve never seen an A2B in the wild, being used by somebody for something more than a test drive or a day rental. Oh well.
But the new Trek bike is different in that it requires you to pedal – it will kick in power based upon how much work you yourself are doing. So, select the switch on your handlebar-mounted dashboard to have it add 50%, 100%, 150%, or 200% more power – just like the $899 electric bikes they sell at the Costco. And yes, the Ride+ has regenerative braking.
But here’s the thing – the bike itself, a 7.3 FX, costs $600-something and the electric bits from Bionx or someplace similar go for $1200 retail, so why doesn’t this ebike cost $1700 instead of $2200?
The World Wonders.
Is this bike 140% better than a Costco eBike? We’ll see.
In other notes, the 32 x 700c Bontrager Race Lite Hardcase tires will probably keep you relatively free from flats on the mean glass-strewn Streets of San Francisco but you might want to get rid of those quick-release skewers. And no front (see comments) fender and no disk brakes, Trek? For $2200, really? (And what would a new battery go for, pray tell? Well, I s’pose we’ll get all the deets soon enough.)
Let’s leave the last word for Gary Fisher:
The new bata bike will go on sale in only a few shops in aug for $2200. This bike hauls ass and can be Luged up stairs.5:41 PM Jul 14th from Twitterrific
Perhaps you could “luge” it downstairs, but certainly not up. As far as lugging is concerned, GF is correct. Unlike the heavy A2B, the new Trek is luggable.
All’s that left to do is to see how many supes buy these things when the test drives are over.
Stay tuned…
Tags: 20, 7.3, a2b, battery, bicycle, bike, bionx, board of supervisors, bontrager, braking, City Hall, city hall cvc center, civic center, commute, cyclists, David Chiu, ebike, electric, eric mar, fx, fx 7.3, fx7.3, Gary Fisher, hub, maximum, moph, panasonic, pedalic, rack, raod, regenerative, ross mirkarimi, San Francisco, test drive, trek, trekusa, ultra motor, Vehicle Code, wsd
Posted in bikes | 14 Comments »
Saturday, June 27th, 2009
See? It’s legal to ride your bike on this stretch of the 101, so long as you keep to the right.
Click to expand:
Details here.
Tags: 101, 21960, bicycle, bike, california, CalTrans, cvc, cyclists, department, freeway, illegal, legal, must exit, prohibited, ride, San Francisco, San Mateo, transportation, Vehicle Code
Posted in bikes | Comments Off
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009
Whether or not you get a ticket for parking the rear of your Mercedesin traffic on Gough Street, you probably shouldn’t do it anyway.
Did the driver even try here?
Click to expand:
Doesn’t look that way.
Tags: 18, benz, california, code, curb, cvc, Examiner, free, gough, inches, Mercedes, newspaper, park, parking, San Francisco, san fransico, street, tires, vehicle, Vehicle Code, Wheels, xam, xams
Posted in cars | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, May 27th, 2009
We’re living in a society here, people. So even though the Man gives allows you a foot and a half spacing from your tires to the curb, you can do better than that. Check out this Mercedes SUV – see how far it is from the curb? Why not use one of the many San Francisco Examiner newspapers that some billionaire from Colorado has seen fit to have strewn about the place?
If a ‘Xam can fit betwixt the curb and your wheel, then you gots to try again. Two Xams away is way too much. PARKING FAIL. Bikes belong in traffic, as they say - you want to make things easier for everybody else, right? With practice, you should be able to get it down to a quarter Xam or less.
Click to expand.
Lots of room for improvement here on Fell Street. (In mitigation, the Mercedes ML driver did manage to retract the outside rear view mirrors. Ten points for Gryffindor.)
If you can’t handle this simple task, maybe you shouldn’t be driving.
Just saying.
Tags: 18, anschutz, california, code, curb, cvc, Examiner, free, inches, newspaper, park, parking, Philip, phillip, San Francisco, san fransico, tires, vehicle, Vehicle Code, Wheels, xam, xams
Posted in cars | 1 Comment »
Friday, May 8th, 2009
You see this Camry heading north (sort of) on San Francisco’s failed Octavia Boulevard? It was just in the “middle lane” (where the cars on the left are) and it looks to be going for the “right lane.” The stopped car in the lower right is already in the right lane, but the driver faces not a green light as the cars in the other two lanes do, but a flashing red light(!) AND a stop sign(!).
The question of the day is whether or not this maneuver by the Camry driver is legal. Note the cyclist catching a few Z’s during the interminable wait to get across the boulevard. Note the 15 MPH speed limit – that’s right, different lanes, different speed limits.
Click to expand.
Here’s the thing – the first question you need to ask yourself is whether car drivers try hard to drive well or not. The answer, in real life, is NO, drivers generally don’t try hard to drive well. That means you should have a good reason before you go and confuse them.
Cause when they get confused, they start killing themselves and others, right?
(This is why all those associated with creating this debacle and then walking away patting themselves on the back job well done should take their bloody Boulevard and cram it with walnuts. Moving on.)
I’m not unfamiliar with the California Vehicle Code, but even if I poured through it looking for the answer I wouldn’t have any confidence in my conclusion.
Some suggested answers are here. Let’s listen to wise AJ:
“Octavia Boulevard is all about what people should do.Auto drivers should stay in the center lanes. Bikes and parkers should stay on the right. Nobody should turn from Market to the ramp. A few homeowners on Oak should be able to park in front of their homes as they have always done. Etc.
Except that nobody knows what they should do, because in order to make it a “beautiful urban boulevard” there are almost no signs explaining what the hell it is all about. For SF transit experts, hey, no problem, everyone was the public meetings and voted on the ballot measures, right? But for everyone else it is damn confusing.”
To conclude, Octavia Boulevard, Bring This Mother Down, all the way back to Mission.
End it don’t mend it.
In the alternative, some signs would be nice.
Tags: accidents, Allan, Allan Jacobs, Allan B. Jacobs, architecture, award, Berkeley, boulevard, Boulevard Book, Boulevards, california, central, department of public works, design, Design of Multiway Boulevards, dpw, Elizabeth, Elizabeth Macdonald, evolution, freeway, History, illegal, Jacobs, lane change, Macdonald, market, movement, Multiway, octavia, octavia boulevard, offramp, onramp, police, Rofé, San Francisco, SFPD, silver, street, The Boulevard Book: History, ticket, traffic, university, Vehicle Code, Yodan, Yodan Rofé
Posted in streets | Comments Off
Saturday, August 30th, 2008
Now, we’re not talking about temporarily closing down a freeway to cars on Father’s Day like they did in Pasadena a while back, to the horror of Rob Anderson.
And we’re not talking about an illegal bicycle romp in traffic the way the Crimanimalz do it on the 405.
We’re talking about you legally riding your bike on the right side of some of California’s 4000 miles of freeway.
Well, according to the California Department of Transportation, maker of melty orange and blue cupcakes, si, se puede! Yes, you can ride your bike on about 1000 miles of California freeway.
Click to expand
For proof, check out this white sign in Marin County on the 101 South. You see? It says “BICYCLES MUST EXIT” so that means, assuming you didn’t ignore any ”Bicycles Prohibited” sign, it’s all good for you to be on this stretch of freeway. Q.E.D. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Here’s the CalTrans version:
Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route. California Vehicle Code Section 21960 says Caltrans and local agencies may prohibit bicyclists from traveling on freeways under their jurisdiction and that they must erect signs stating the prohibition. There are no signs permitting bicyclists on freeways. When a bicyclist is legally traveling on a freeway, he/she may be directed off the freeway at the next off-ramp by a sign that says “Bicycles Must Exit.” The freeway will be posted at the next on-ramp with a sign that says “Bicycles Prohibited.”
And here’s the Vehicle Code:
21960. (a) The Department of Transportation and local authorities,
by order, ordinance, or resolution, with respect to freeways,
expressways, or designated portions thereof under their respective
jurisdictions, to which vehicle access is completely or partially
controlled, may prohibit or restrict the use of the freeways,
expressways, or any portion thereof by pedestrians, bicycles or other
nonmotorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven
cycle, motorized bicycle, or motorized scooter. A prohibition or
restriction pertaining to bicycles, motor-driven cycles, or motorized
scooters shall be deemed to include motorized bicycles; and no
person may operate a motorized bicycle wherever that prohibition or
restriction is in force. Notwithstanding any provisions of any
order, ordinance, or resolution to the contrary, the driver or
passengers of a disabled vehicle stopped on a freeway or expressway
may walk to the nearest exit, in either direction, on that side of
the freeway or expressway upon which the vehicle is disabled, from
which telephone or motor vehicle repair services are available.
(b) The prohibitory regulation authorized by subdivision (a) shall
be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are
erected upon any freeway or expressway and the approaches thereto.
If any portion of a county freeway or expressway is contained within
the limits of a city within the county, the county may erect signs on
that portion as required under this subdivision if the ordinance has
been approved by the city pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
1730 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(c) No ordinance or resolution of local authorities shall apply to
any state highway until the proposed ordinance or resolution has
been presented to, and approved in writing by, the Department of
Transportation.
(d) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section on or
after January 1, 2005, to prohibit pedestrian access to a county
freeway or expressway shall not be effective unless it is supported
by a finding by the local authority that the freeway or expressway
does not have pedestrian facilities and pedestrian use would pose a
safety risk to the pedestrian.
See you out there. Stay safe!
Tags: 101, 21960, 405, bicycle, bike, california, CalTrans, cyclists, department, freeway, i-405, legal, marin, must exit, prohibited, ride, San Francisco, transportation, Vehicle Code
Posted in bikes | 3 Comments »
