If the truck driver was passing at excessive speed and insufficient distance, and also slamming his brakes after passing, then charge him with attempted murder. A truck is not a toy.

I agree that the bicyclists were wrong to beat on his truck. They should have just held him there under citizens arrest until the police arrived. Letting him go was a big mistake. The police likely will not take the case seriously at this point.

I respectfully commute via car from Los Gatos Hills to Stanford via Skyline via Woodside road every work day.

I was an avid cyclist in the '80s and '90s until I was struck by a car, and became much more cautious in my riding.

These days, I am an EMR for a volunteer fire department in the area.

Many cyclists are earnest, courteous, and share the road. They are aware, and respectful of the dangers of riding a dangerous road with very little shoulder and blind corners. These are the cyclist that as a cyclist, I identify with. They respect that the rules of the road apply to all vehicles.

I have been very saddened to experience very aggressive, discourteous cyclists that are either oblivious to danger and their responsibility for following laws or bring to cycling an almost bullying behavior... My car has been struck, spit on, and made to follow a cyclist driving in the middle of the road, at a very slow rate of speed, without pulling right for several miles. I am alway alert, worry about those who drive in the middle down Skyline, on blind corners when the speed limit is 50, and many go much faster. As an EMR, I've stopped to help those who have fallen or who have been struck.
I really do not understand this new bike culture of the few that have this scary attitude.

There are 3 sides to every story. Cyclists can have Canada Rd all they want...but.... I don't feel sorry for cyclists who get run over on 92 or Skyline or Devil's Slide [portion removed; disrespectful language violates terms of use.]

Hi Dave, this is common care for your fellow human beings. Its been so long since we've talked. How have you been?

Police get a free pass to shoot to kill anyone using a vehicle as a weapon against them. Happens all the time. Its self defense.

"Police get a free pass to shoot to kill anyone using a vehicle as a weapon against them"

It is not a free pass, it is a hard earned credential that requires a great deal of training and discipline before become a qualified and sworn peace officer. Civilans lack that training and discipline which is just one of the reasons why vigilante behavior is a totally inappropriate response to whatever happened.

Maybe if bicyclists respected the 3 second distance between the front wheel of their vehicle, and the rear wheel of the bicyclist in front of them, like cars do, and maybe if bicyclists faced a fact that rear-ending the bicyclist before them is pretty much automatically their fault, like cars do, there might not have been this incident what-so-ever. There is no question the laws need to catch up to bicyclists.

This is from CDH: page 54,CVC:21202
"Bicyclists may ride side-by-side (two abreast) on roadways,but they must ride single file when being overtaken by other vehicles. Bicyclists may only travel more than two abreast on a shoulder, bike lane, or bike path intended for bike use if there is sufficent space. However, they must be in single file when passing vehicles,pedestrians,or other bicyclists."

Woodside and Caltrans should be working harder to ensure the signage and enforcement of this code.

As an (ex-team)cyclist, I know very well that a larger group with a mix of in/experienced, anonymous riders just calls for trouble.
Dangerous and reckless behavior in such an "un-policed" ride is almost inevitable.
Granted, especially newer cyclists consider riding on public roads to be personal competitions against everybody else on the road.
That is what cycling races and criteriums on closed courses should be for.

With all that said, taking the whole lane (while still obeying the rules of the road) is the safest and fastest way to get a larger group of riders through a busy and heavily traveled area.

Given the recurring problems particularly in this area, I also see that at least some of the locals can't give a group of fellow humans the leeway and courtesy they would give a horse-drawn carriage.
As residents living in the area often own horses themselves, them not sharing their roads nor giving common courtesy is very sad...

" taking the whole lane (while still obeying the rules of the road)"

That is a contradiction. Two abreast is the maximum allowed by the law.

CVC 21202 does not say anything about riding two abreast.

Web Link

This is from CDH: page 54,CVC:21202

"Bicyclists may ride side-by-side (two abreast) on roadways,but they must ride single file when being overtaken by other vehicles. Bicyclists may only travel more than two abreast on a shoulder, bike lane, or bike path intended for bike use if there is sufficent space. However, they must be in single file when passing vehicles,pedestrians,or other bicyclists."

Peter, what is CDH? I read CVC21202 (the law) and it says nothing about side by side riding.

This situation is partially the result of improperly marked bike lanes. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices (MUTCD) is the regulating authority on bike facility markings. It defines how they must be signed and striped. The CVC refers to the MUTCD in its definition.

In CA, there are 3 types of bike facilities: Class I - Bike Path (no cars anywhere), Class II - Bike Lane (bikes only on shared roadway), and Class III - Bike Route (bikes share the road).

The MUTCD spells out the conditions for a Class II Bike Lane: black/white bike lane signs at each intersection accompanied by stencils on the roadway. Via Google maps, I saw no black/white signs and only some random stencils.

More confusing still is the green/white "Bike Lane" sign at Canada and Woodside. The green/white sign indicates a Class III Bike Route. You're not going to find that green/white sign that says "Bike Lane" in the MUTCD; it's not legal.

The Town of Woodside needs to clean this up if only to make the Class II Bike Lane enforceable. If it were properly signed and striped, the bikes would be required to ride in it (CVC21208) and motor vehicles would need to stay out (CVC21209).

Until it's fixed, it's going to be a free for all. The Traffic Commissioner would dismiss all the bike lane citations that might be issued.

"what is CDH"

California Driver's Handbook published by DMV.

It's pretty simple... Public roads are for transportation, not Racing.

"Until it's fixed, it's going to be a free for all."

Unless the bicyclists who attacked the truck and driver and, if his actions so justify, the driver are prosecuted this situation will create an attraction for both aggressive bicyclists and aggressive drivers. And then unless the rules of the road are clarified and posted and enforced even more serious situations will occur.

CDH is not law. Is there a law that requires two-abreast and single file when passing? The CVC section that the CDH refers to in your quote does not.

I sadly recall the days, in the 1980's where bike culture was friendly. Cyclists and cars didn't antagonize each other quite as much.

I honestly fear for cyclists on my commute. I am constantly looking out, and I carry EMR supplies in my car to help. Some "locals" I'm sure get annoyed, and road rage, and oblivious tourists or truck drivers frighten me the most. Sometimes they swerve over the double line on blind corners to avoid cyclists going the same way, just to head on or hit a driver doing the same coming the opposite direction.

When a tree was down on Woodside Road one day last year, and the road was closed, I went back and headed down old La Honda Road. I slowed, and let a group of cyclists at Skyline know the road ahead was closed, and they were very unfriendly to me.

I really feel that a responsiblity towards courtesy and safety rests with both drivers and cyclists. When a caring and courteous attitude is restored, it will be much more enjoyable to traverse the road and beautiful mountains we both enjoy.

One day, it would be great if there were roads just for cyclists in the mountains. It is such a wonderful place.

Please folks, perpetuate caring and courtesy, and I do think safety will increase.

Laurie in Las Cumbres

This is an issue near and dear to my heart. That is why I am speaking out so much about it. I would love to commute all or part way to work via bicycle. But there is a very unkind war going on out there on the roads.

My child is a triathlete on the Berkeley team, and I really fear for her. As a cyclist, I have experienced aggression and prejudice, but I fear it is against an attitude of discourtesy that I do not perpetuate.

I would urge those of you who ride to drive frequently on the road. When you are going at a faster speed, you encounter more of what is going on during the route.

Anyway, I do hope a discourse will develop to help foster safety and courtesy along this treacherous but beautiful route.

Road rage is NOT the answer, whatever form it takes.

Laurie

When teaching my kids to drive I always cautioned them not to get ticked off at jerk bicyclists as they are very vulnerable. Many bicyclists think of themselves as the goodest-bestest people so they get offened pretty easily plus they are so vulnerable that the adrenaline flows to the max when they are in danger because they are in real danger and most have had more than close calls already. Its funny that we don't read about a group of motorists rampaging on bicyclists, though. Then we have Critical Mass in SF who personify the problem. There are a lot of tough guys there but they don't go to Hunter's Point or the Mission as their anarchy stops at those borders.

I drive for a living which means I get to interact with cyclists and drivers.

Most cyclists are pretty good, a few don't stop when they should, but seen drivers behave badly.

When cyclists travel in large groups, racing each other which leads to passing.

Please check what is behind you.

I am the mother of a 15 yr old. He has his permit and is learning to drive. Does he make mistakes? yep. Is he driving my big SUV? yep. Am I seeing mistakes by cyclists multiple times a day? yep. Who will win if my son hits the cyclist that falls in front of us after hitting his buddy because he was following too close? EVERYONE. But the cyclist will probably be dead....Roads contain many users, use it wisely.

Both driver and riders are at fault.

"It's very competitive. There's a lot of testosterone in that group. People do stupid stuff," Mark said.

Mark says in a number of different ways that this group of riders is full of mayhem and implies that the driver could have suffered a serious beating. Guys ride in this group for the high they get, and they can feel invincible -- until there's a close call like this. But they go on that ride knowing they are riding with a bunch of jerks.

I suggest the county assigns a sheriff's deputy motorcycle escort for a few weeks. Give the riders a margin of safety -- and reinforce to the jerks that they have to rein it in. If that ride wants to continue, make everyone pay a fee to pay for the regular sheriff escort.

Rides full of jerks leave lasting annoyance with drivers and put the rest of us at risk -- both drivers and riders. So put an adult presence in there with them and get them to clean it up. If that takes away too much of their fun, they'll find somewhere else to ride.

This is a prime example why I don't enjoy riding my bike anymore. Boths sides are to blame when it comes to road rage. What makes it harder is when the riders choose to ride in a pack down the middle of the road giving drivers no choice but to going around them. unless boths sides come together and can share the road the problems are only going to get worse. riders blame people in cars people in cars blame the riders. as the late rodney king said can't we just all get along. Then maybe both sides can enjoy a nice sunday outing without killing each other.

I think the sheriff has started the enforcment actions. Two bikes pull over, appeared that both got tickets. I am sure the Sheriff can handles the situation, lots of tickets for all who act like jerks and endanger other people.

[Post removed; stick to the topic]

Large groups of bikers are a recent development that neither our current laws nor road design anticipated. I find it nearly impossible with a trailer full of horses, to pass (up-hill) bike groups on our rural mountain roads (Kings Mountain, Woodside, Old La Honda, Alpine, Pescadero, Page Mill etc) Clearly at road intersections (stop sign) it makes sense for bikers to move as a group but after that appropriate guidelines / laws need to be established to allow different user groups to share the road safely, yet efficiently.

If a certain element think that a teen in a hoodie is asking for trouble, then I think it's okay to relate the silly eyesores they wear (bike 'outfits') to the rude behavior of the gangs of men vandalizing a truck.

G Luc the "tights" are functional. They serve a purpose, like managing sweat and preventing saddle sores. Do me a favor, go ride 60 miles in your jeans or whatever and after the sores have healed tell me what you think.

As a pick-up truck owner who drives Canada Road from Woodside Road on a daily basis---I am also a horse owner who boards in that neighborhood---I welcome ANYBODY to beat the crap out of ANY vehicle doing more than 35 mph on Canada Road in that area. The speed limit is there for a reason, and the stop sign at Glenwood was put there years ago after a child was hit by a car in that spot. Driving, cycling, motorcycling, whatever---if you're going that fast, you are putting equestrians and pedestrians at risk. Slow the hell down.

The Spectrum ride peloton is full of hooligans, and should police itself. Get rid of the assholes, and you might find you get along with the Woodside and PV community much better.

We have a pedestrian walkway, a horse trail, and single bike lanes on each side of Canada Road but cyclists continue to ride on Canada Rd in groups spilling over into the vehicle lanes. It's not rocket science to see this is a dangerous practice for cyclists and maddening for car drivers. Perhaps ticketing cyclists who ride in groups on Canada Rd would discourage this but something has to be done. Maybe it got out of hand with this poor truck driver who was just trying to drive in his lane on the road. Bottom line,it is simply not safe to bike in the car lanes or hold up traffic. There are designated Sundays for cyclists at the Edgewood exit where the road is closed and they can cycle in any size group they choose.

Cyclists should realize that nobody knows what the law actually says, but most observe cyclists riding 2 or more abreast and think it doesn't look very safe. I counsel my kids constantly that single file is the ONLY safe way to ride. And riding ON the white bike line is dangerous. Imagine if cars drove on the white or yellow lines instead of in the middle of the lane? Recipe for disaster.

The white bike line, where it exists, is the outside perimeter of the lane. And where there is no line I feel I take my life and those of cyclists in my hand with every encounter. It's nerve-wrecking and puts people in a heightened state of stress with an increase of impulsive reactions.
Be safe.

I was one of the people in the truck and I can vogue of the driver that he did NOT speed by fast or dangerously and never used his truck as a "weapon" only a shield when they tried to attack us and certainty did not slam on his brakes but he did use them when he had reached the stop sign at glenwood. The bikers where taking up the whole line so we honked to make them move out of the way, and when they didn't we went around them, not like he had much of a chose. I live in woodside and I really dislike the bikers they think they can do whatever they want. just the other day i was on canada and a biker swerved into my line without even liking over his shoulder and i almost hit him. If the dam bikers got so pissed that day at us for going around them "to scary" then maybe they should learn to ride in smaller groups and stay on there side of the road! the stupid bikers should have never touched his truck it was there own fault for thinking they own the road and for who ever said the diver was scared that's why he got back into the car you should get your story right before you open your mouth because i was the one screaming at him to get back in. I am also a horse owner in woodside and when i go out on a ride there have been multiple times when my horse got spooked by a biker riding passed fast and close to my horse they do NOT have an courtesy for anyone on the road but there selves i think they are disrespectful and need to learn to ride with respect or deal with there consequences.

Canada Rd Resident:

Don't mistake a white fog like for a bike lane. You're right, riding on the line is dangerous - that paint is slippery and it could very easily lead to fall. But if there is no bike lane, just a fog line, cyclists are allowed to be as far to the right as practical while STILL IN THE TRAFFIC LANE (i.e. not to the right of the line). If there is room I will try to stay to the right of the line, but if there is no room then I will say as far right as I can.

Jiana:

Multiple witnesses had the truck driver trying to run people off the road. Your talking about "there[sic] consequences" makes me think they are right. If there are problems then CALL THE POLICE. But trying to run people over is not the answer. And not very bright if you're outnumbered.

John:

where you there? because if not then maybe you shouldn't assume. do you really think we would be that stupid to "try and run over bikers" NO! but thanks for your input. when the bikers surrounded are truck we moved inch by inch to try and get them to move its not like we were intentionally trying to hit him! maybe they should have gotten it through here head that we where trying to leave to they should have move out of the way! it was there own stupid decision to stand in front of the truck. and FYI we did call the police

I am still curious, is it actually against the law for more than two cyclists to ride next to each other?

G Luc

"PV mom, please do not teach your teen to play a game of winning while driving. Waiting a couple of seconds to pass safely should not ruin any ones day. Following a rider, or motorcyclist to closely is not safe."

He doesn't play ANY games while he is driving. He is a very safe driver. How about you teach your Spectrum riders not to play the "Tour de France" in Woodside and Portola Valley!

"Off the subject would be the question, why teens should be driving huge SUVs or trucks in the first place." Again - MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

If bike riders don't want to be on the white bike lane line , then stay to the right of it. This has been going on for years and only seems to happen with large groups of riders. There has to be a way to have rules for large groups ,that allows both riders and drivers to be safe. I not sure why any bike rider would ram his wheels into a truck, if the truck driver retaliates physics dictate the truck will win. Between the sherriff, the county and the town someone dictate some rules

Bob: The white line is a FOG LINE. It's not the bike lane. You're not supposed to be to the right of it. If you are then you are OFF THE ROAD. Cyclists are not required to ride off road. Canada has a bike lane on parts of it and no bike lane on other parts.

JIANA: No, but my friends were. And I trust them more than I trust someone who obviously has a beef with cyclists.

G Luc: Then you mind yours. Clearly your beef with cyclists seems to make you forget that we have as much right to be on the road as you do in your ginormous SUV.

John, what makes you say that the white line is a fog line? On Canada Road, it's signed as a bike lane.

[Post removed; see terms of use.]

Chic - a sign does not a bike lane make. If the bike lane does not conform to the MUTCD then it's not a legal bike lane and cannot be enforced as such.

The PV cops started citing people on Portola for "not riding in the bike lane". The cyclists proved that the lane does not conform to the MUTCD and had their tickets dismissed, PV took the signs down shortly thereafter.

Is there something non-compliant about the signed bike lane on Canada Road?

Chic choc: I seem to recall breaks in the bike lane on Canada where there is only a fog line. I could be mistaken, though. When there is a bike lane I stay in it, since I hate getting hit.

The point being - just because you see a strong white line doesn't mean there is a bike lane. It may be a fog line. A lot of drivers I've talked to don't know the difference between the two.

[Post removed; refers to another removed post and is off topic.]

What the heck is a fog line and why would it be white?

bob: no, cyclists should not be expected to ride off the road. but except in rare situations, riding on the road but to the left of the fog line (or in the designated walk/bike lane) only makes sense to avoid impeding reasonable movement of traffic.

This isn't the VC but is worth a look; DMV rules for bicyclists and other vehicles (bicyclists are entitled to share the road...ride as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practical...should ride single file...must move at the same speed as other traffic...obey all traffic signals and stop signs...and more!)

California Driver Handbook - Sharing the Road
Web Link

Bob: The thick white line at the right side of the lane is called the fog line. It's purpose to help drivers find the edge of the road in low visibility situations.

Never heard it referred to as a fog line. How do you see it in the fog? I think that is there to indicate where the road ends not for fog.

Bob: Web Link

The CHP analyized Auto-Bicyclists accidents and found that 2/3 of them were caused by bicyclists. For those who would scoff at the CHP as being biased they also reported that bicyclists were riding under the influence by the same margin, 2:1.

Just because bicyclists don't use gasoline it dosesn't mean they are pure. Seems just the opposite.

Rules, you say? I don't got to follow no damn Rules.

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

****************

If a 'pod' of bicycles has no traffic in front of it and is impeding the normal flow of traffic behind it then that 'pod' is required to yield.

I have no doubt that most such 'pods' will ignore this requirement just as they do most other rules of the road. The 'pod' rule is everyone else must obey the law be we are 'special'. They really have a hard time with the simple phrase SHARE THE ROAD.

Peter Carpenter:

Irrelevant in this case, as there was only one car/truck involved here, but yes - if there are 5 cars behind you and the road is so narrow that they cannot pass then you have to pull over WHERE SAFE TO DO SO. Of course every time I've tried to do that you have to wave at the people in the cars explaining that yes, hurry up and go around so that I can get back to riding. I even do it when there is one car, just because to me it's easier to interrupt my ride even when the law doesn't require it than wait for the driver to get impatient and try and unsafe pass.

Norman: Link to the analysis please? My web searching didn't turn it up.

Cyclists when riding either alone or with a few people are generally courteous and considerate. However, when they ride in large groups they can, at times, be rude and belligerent. This is called the mob mentality. They perceive that there is safety in numbers and believe they won't be held accountable for their misbehavior. I have seen them on numerous occasions deliberately cover the entire lane of traffic just to irritate motorists.

What could have happened in this instance is that that a pack of cyclists blockaded the entire lane and when the truck saw the other lane clear he passed the cyclists quickly, not out of anger, but to minimize the time in the other lane.

The cyclists, angry that they had been thwarted in their prank, then vandalized the truck.

Single file, single file
I imagine they were not

Bottom line...the cyclist account confirms the accosted pickup driver's account because bicyclists traveling too tightly packed is no excuse to accost a driver. There are simply way too many irresponsible bicyclists.

John:

Sorry I couldn't find my source, myself.

Also, if anyone wants to experience the anarchy of bicyclists go to SF where Critical Mass rides the last Friday of every month as they gleefully take over the streets. Try to drive near them and see what happens. Also, the police will be around so you can ask them what occurs. Its ugly.

Even so, I stay far behind or way to the side of bicyclists no matter how they hog the road. A little bump and they could be dead and I don't want that.

Norman:

I'm not a fan of Critical Mass myself. They never respect pedestrians which always have right of way over cyclists and cars. (Although the drivers in SF seem to forget that part too.)

For me it comes down to this:

I doubt cyclists break the law that much more that car drivers given the speeds I see cars doing around Woodside. I think what it comes to is that car drivers get annoyed when held up by a cyclist, and if one lives in an area popular with cyclists the car drivers I suspect have a bit against cyclists in general, so the moment they see one doing something they don't like it's a "AH HA! See, you ARE all evil scum!" sort of thing.

But at the end of the day the fact is: bike vs car the bike always loses. You could say that bikes then should stay off the road, but given that pedestrians have the right of way over cars then perhaps cars should stay off the road too to make sure they don't hit pedestrians? Or, perhaps, folks could just relax and stop trying to run bikes off the road.

I am slow. I don't ride in groups. I stay to the right. I stop at EVERY stop sign, even ones half way down a sweet descent. Yet I still get honked at, threatened, and once in a while nearly killed by the occasional idiot. The MAJORITY of car drivers are fine, just like the majority of cyclists are fine. But in either group there are exceptions - I just hope one of them doesn't kill me.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

[Portion removed.] Interestingly enough, most know their behavior is socially disgusting so they won't say bigoted statements in public very often, but they sure seem to feel "brave" here.

So tell me again, now that you've labeled every cyclist as an aggressive lawless demon (which allows the bigot to hate them all) tell me all about how bad they are, but try it in public and see how intelligent you look....Bigot.

Most children grow/grew up without proper training (at school) on how to ride a bicycle in traffic, and most parents could care less about taking on that task (at least by my observations).
Add to that an antiquated and confusing set of rules/laws when it comes to cycling in traffic (at least in the CVC).
Mix in some taking the law/freedom into your own hands, be it as a driver or cyclist (without even knowing the most basic applicable rights and rules).

Then you get incidents like this one; and countless others that are very similar.

Sure, let's just keep finger pointing, yelling/threatening and killing. Very civilized and progressive.
Cyclists in densely populated areas are here to stay. Better hurry.

Just a comment on the rider who, when he/she pulls over to allow another vehicle to pass wants the driver to zip around him/her when he/she waves so he/she can get on with his/her ride.

No. Under the most basic defensive driving rules (and common sense), you don't rely on what another driver (of any kind of vehicle, including a bike) tells you. You see for yourself. If you move over for me (thank you) please understand that I'm not going to take your word for it that it's safe to pass. I'm going to pass when I can see for myself that it is safe. That protects me from a head on accident and prevents you from getting caught up in said accident. So, please do continue your courtesy approach of moving over, as any slow moving traffic in any type of vehicle should do. Just understand that the driver behind you is not going to necessarily respond to your waving them to pass.

I'll generally wave them past when I know its clear. 90% of the time they'll pass and when they don't, I figure they will when they see its clear. When I wave, I'm "on guard" to be passed from then on, and I know it won't always be immediately. Seems to make things go smoothly.

Where are comments from the town of Woodside or the CHP?
The level of anger some people bring to this issue is obviously contributing to creating the problem. Why are the cyclists riding in large (50+)groups in this area? And people who drive on those (or any!) roads might anticipate delays and some frustration, so why not take a calmer attitude and do what is safest for everyone.
At this point, it seems appropriate that the communities should do something before a tragedy occurs.

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2013 at 11:35 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online

"Until it's fixed, it's going to be a free for all."

Unless the bicyclists who attacked the truck and driver and, if his actions so justify, the driver are prosecuted this situation will create an attraction for both aggressive bicyclists and aggressive drivers. And then unless the rules of the road are clarified and posted and enforced even more serious situations will occur.

La Hondan:

It's funny, that works BOTH ways. I've had car drivers try to wave me through places and while thoughtful it's much easier if we all just follow the normal rules of the road.

However, the problem is that if you pass when the rider is not expecting it then it may cause difficulty. Unless there are 5 cars behind the slower traffic then the slower traffic does not have to pull over - doing so is just being nice. But if the rider doe that and it puts the rider in danger (due to the road condition), then the rider should take the lane back and you'd be stuck behind him/her.

I urge the County and Woodside and Portola Valley to clarify the rules of the road, change them if necessary and then engage in an aggressive education program followed by strict enforcement of the laws. If the current ambiguous rules and lack of enforcement continue it is only a matter of time before someone is hurt - or worse.

Such steps have been tried repeatedly. Stop sign violations aside, the rules regarding fog lines are ambiguous enough to make enforcement arguable if not difficult.

And there is the matter of the Sheriff's Department having deputies whose workloads are light enough that they could afford to be out in their cars patrolling the roads for errant bicyclists.

The answer is outreach, by bicycling communities and by the residents.

Living by a strict interpretation of the laws is not living.

The California vehicle code is fairly clear for highways:

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

It is reasonable to expect, except on downhill grades that bicycles will travel slower than automobile traffic (25mph or above). This does not suggest that a bicyclist should wait until 5 cars are backed-up before pulling over to let traffic pass. In the same way, we wouldn't expect a kid on a scooter to take over the lane, at less-than normal speeds.

The question may be whether 22400 applies on 2-lane roads that are not highways, or whether municipalities have minimum speed laws.

Amen, to clarity, education and enforcement. In particular, to laws that are neither ambiguous or subject to interpretation.

"Living by a strict interpretation of the laws is not living."

When sharing the road with 2 ton cars and 4 ton trucks and everyone living by a strict interpretation of the laws may well SAVE your life.

If you want to live outside the laws please do so somewhere where you don't endanger anyone else or place a driver in the position of accidentally killing or injuring you.

Peter, you've missed my point.

Central Menlo:

There is considerable question about whether that applies to bicycles. Otherwise "share the road" signs would never be posted anywhere. And you failed to include the complete law:

"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."

Please note - because of a grade. That sort of impacts cyclists, don't you think?

Meanwhile, check out VC Section 21656 Turning Out of Slow Moving Vehicles:

"On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place."

That's where the 5 vehicle rule comes from.

" a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place"

and when the group of cyclists numbers fifty and there is only a car or two ... the "normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place" IS the group of cyclists. <!>

@John, it really shouldn't be an issue, because bicycles are required to ride as close to the right hand edge as practicable, in general. So they won't typically be blocking highway traffic, unless they are breaking that law.

@Outsider, those pods are usually illegal, because bicycles are legally required to ride as close to the right hand edge as practicable in general (ie, single file), and pod riders do not.

@Chic choc

There are many valid reasons for a bicycle to take the lane. 21202 states:

"(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized."

@Observer in California cyclists are required to follow rules as drivers, but bicycles aren't vehicles. That law would otherwise keep all slow moving vehicles off the road and the other sections of the CVC make it clear that is not the case.

My sense is that many, not all, bicyclist want to share the road but have no interest in sharing the responsibilities.

Their insistence on 'taking the road' particularly en masse without sharing the responsibilities means that there will inevitably be conflicts - and the laws of physics being immutable they will lose.

The town of Woodside has recently held public forums to discuss measures. As usual, nothing is covered in the Almanac. That's why we don't read or post in the almanac. Nextdoor woodside is quite popular. Woodside RWC Patch even has more woodside news.

@John I wholeheartedly agree there are many legitimate reasons for cyclists (I am one) to take the lane. I'm wondering which one might apply to a large group ride. In many cases the groups can maintain a speed at or close to the posted speed limit. In other cases, say the limit is 45 mph, they are slower yet do not ride singe file or even two abreast and spread across the driving lane for extended periods. I just want to be clear, are you suggesting this is fine? My own opinion is that these groups should self-limit their size and break into multiple groups of a more practical size for public roadways. I do understand the allure of the large pack from the cyclist perspective but I'm not sure it's the best choice.

@Jim I don't ride in those groups. On the group rides I participate in we are required by the rules of the group to stay single file except when passing (even if the law says we can ride 2 abreast) and keep at least a bike length behind the cyclist in front of us. I obey those rules. I also come to a complete stop, foot on the ground, at stop signs.

That being said, I've still be harassed, even when just out solo. The implication from many seems to be that all cyclists are nothing but scofflaws who deserve to be run over by the innocent motorists - regardless of what laws the motorists may break. It seems that the "crime" of potentially causing a motorist a few seconds of delay is enough to make running me off the road justified.

Are there a lot of bad cyclists? Yeah. Are there a lot of bad car drivers? Yep. But no one ever seems to want to talk about them for some reason.

John, you make a good point. My reference to grade was meant that on a downhill grade, bicyclists might easily ride at normal traffic speed (25-35mhp, depending on the posted speed).

And to Observer, you certainly make a point. Those 50 bicyclists v. one car, could most certainly define normal traffic flow at that time and place. And 100 pedestrians could take the road and define normal again. Or 200 cars, 400 tanks or 800 philosophers. Maybe even a rocket ship at 186,000mps, except who knows what would happen then. On most of the roads posted 25mph, just like the speed of light, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.

I've lived in Portola Valley over 20 years. I remember the first time I came upon a bicycle accident, a solo rider coming down Hwy 84 missed a turn and hit head on into a car. It forever changed my view of what matters in life. I watch cyclists today who flirt with their lives and others, same thing with car drivers. It's sad, but until each and everyone of them has to witness (or worse, be part of) an accident of this nature, they just won't change.

Everyone demands their rights, well what about my right to not have witnessed the aftermath of such a horrible event. Exactly, I have no such right. So next time you flirt with your life or someone else's, it's probably safe to say you have given up your rights. How can a large group of cyclists traveling the roads at such a pace be safe? For them or anyone else? Of course that's no excuse for anyone to ever put them in danger with a car/truck or any other "weapon". At the end of the day, all that matters is that everyone's Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, Husband, Wife, friend or loved one makes it home safe and alive. Think about this when you decide to demand your rights, release your anger, take a drink before you drive or take any other action that puts your or someone else's life in danger. Trust me, you do not want to witness what I have.

There needs to be a law requiring all adults who ride a bike have it licensed, with a license plate and carry their CDL while riding their bikes. There should be a license plate on the back of the bike and a pinney on the rider with the plate number. Driver's who see bikers engaging in dangerous behavior can call the police and give the bike license plate number. Just like currently, you can call in a car on the road that appears to have a drunk driver or dangerous driving. Currenly, the bikers are anonymous out on the roads while the cars are not. Let's take the anonymity away from the bikers and make them accountable just like car drivers.

With an even playing field maybe the bikers will consider their behavior.

Proposals to require bikes and bicyclists to have licenses and insurance are put forth regularly and they never go anywhere. The primary problems are 1) unintended consequences and 2) cost.
1) How would you deal with school children? Palo Alto has thousands of kids biking to school who don't have drivers licenses. There are also adults who bike because their drivers licenses have been suspended, and a bike provides their only means of transport. There are a lot of people who can't afford a car but can afford a bike, but when you raise the bar like this they would not be able to get to work.
2) Licensing bikes and bicyclists is going to be a huge cost. If it was a way to make money you can be sure the state would have done it long ago. Politicians have looked at this time and again and have decided that the benefits are not worth the costs.

You can try to deal with all the issues of 1) but it gets so complicated that nobody has ever made a serious attempt at legislation. There are more important ways for us to spend our time and energy.

@central Menlo: 100 pedestrians would not define the flow of traffic (apart from a right of way, especially at a crosswalk or intersection) The vehicle code is clear on pedestrians: Web Link

and 25 mph is the maximum speed, not the required speed.

@John: agreed -- bicycles don't define the speed limit on the sign, especially from the perspective of 85% speed surveys. just the safe flow of traffic

Ultimately, Long Time PV Resident put it best: it's not about asserting rights, but in getting places safely.

"Around 10:30 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 26, the cyclists were heading south on Canada Road on the weekly Spectrum Ride. "There are some guys that are jerks on that ride. Out of all the group rides, that's one of the craziest rides there is. More mayhem."

So a bunch of outsiders roll into town, act like jerks, are aggressive and violent towards the locals, and expect.... ? Seriously, what kind of reaction do they expect? There isn't any community around that would put up with that kind of nonsense for very long. This is not the first time cyclists have acted violently towards local residents. Anyone remember the lady in Portola Valley who was hit in the face with a water bottle? I live in a flatlands area from which many of those miscreants originate. They cause every bit as much trouble here as they do in the hills. Pedestrian in the crosswalk? No matter, simply run the red light because cyclists have the right of way. Those pesky laws only apply to motorists. Are there automobiles on the road? Go ahead and holler at them because, well just because they are motorists and all motorists are evil. If the yell back, throw something at them. That kind of ridiculous drama. Do you want that in your community? Please take our cyclists if you want them, they are all yours.

The easy solution is to close the roads to cyclists. Not all roadways, only those stretches where the cyclists cause trouble or present a safety hazard.

Donald,

I appreciate your comments. Some clarifications:

1. My suggestion specifically stated "adults" not minors. Kids riding their bikes to school haven't been involved in any of the problems being discussed.

2. Adults who don't have driver's liceses are able to get ID cards from the DMV. In fact many teenagers, not yet old enough to drive, obtain these cards in order to have an ID for other purposes. I don't think a CDL would have to be necessary in my idea. But as you might agree, most people (adults) that leave the house in any capacity (walking, jogging, biking) do carry some form of ID on them. I know my friends and I always have ID on us when running. So having a form of ID is nothing new in our society.

3.The current fees in CA for a CA Biking License is $10 for 3 years and $5 for a 3 year renewal. Not cost prohibitive for most when compared to the state bike helmet, which requires all those under 18 to wear a helmet, which is cost prohibitive to many children.

4. I don't know the cost for the state. They currently do have a registry with stickers - I just think adding a License Plate for the bike, just like the car, would give us safer roads.

5. UCDavis, a huge biking community, mandates registering all bikes with the CA bike license. It hasn't hurt anybody there following the mandate. (I know, I had a student there.) Just add a license plate to the process - not that difficult.

@JoePedestrian

As someone who, as I've said, follows all the laws I find your assertion that all cyclists are "jerks" to be offensive and unfair.

However, if you want to close the roads to bicycles I'd suggest closing then to motorcycles, Porsches, and BMWs. I've seen plenty of guys on sport bikes and in sports cars blowing stop signs and egregiously exceeding the speed limit on and in such vehicles.

If you want to close the roads that's fine - just make them private. That way none of my tax money supports them.

@Suggestion

The bike license thing was always presented as more of an anti-theft thing. At least that's how it was when I was at UCD.

John,

"The bike license thing was always presented as more of an anti-theft thing. At least that's how it was when I was at UCD."

Yes, that's still the case and it increases the return rate on stolen/misplaced bikes. I think if we took it one step further by issuing the Plates (as opposed to just the sticker), then it would serve the purpose to identify the cyclists are if need be. Just as we can for the car drivers. I personally would have no problem with a plate on my bike. I have nothing to hide. I think most should not have a problem with a plate on their bike. Just like the drivers, it's the minority not the majority that need to be pulled over.

The licensing of bikes is being dropped by many localities (Santa Clara County and Palo Alto I know for sure) because it is too costly and not effective. I seriously doubt that hanging a plate on a bike would help at all. They would necessarily be small and you would have no chance of reading one from a distance or from a moving car.

All the solutions proposed in the last few postings are sledgehammers being applied to a gnat. They would impose on all bicyclists, require changes in stae law (read: unlikely) and some would require the establishment of whole new bureaucracies. All this to take care of a small number of bicyclists who are behaving irresponsibly.

If the Spectrum riders are breaking the law and present such a huge threat to public safety, why aren't the cops following them and ticketing them? The time and route of the Spectrum ride are well known, so it would be easy to do. The fact that law enforcement agencies are not pursuing this tells me that they don't think it is a big enough problem to be a priority for them.

@ Donald:

"If the Spectrum riders are breaking the law and present such a huge threat to public safety, why aren't the cops following them and ticketing them? The time and route of the Spectrum ride are well known, so it would be easy to do. The fact that law enforcement agencies are not pursuing this tells me that they don't think it is a big enough problem to be a priority for them."

That's the best idea I've read. However, if they're going to increase patrolling it should be done fairly - make sure that car drivers who behave inappropriately are also ticketed. Perhaps increased weekend presence in the area would be the best way to go.

I live in woodside, cycle in woodside and drive in woodside. I can honestly say that I have never encountered issues with the spectrum riders, the nooners or any group of cyclists. I respect drivers and cyclists and if I have to drive slower and wait then so be it. It's all a mental attitude. When I drive down Canada and woodside road, I see a sign that says Canada road and woodside road. Unfortunately, some people see a sign that reads Entitlement road and that's where the issues start.

I'm another one who used to ride Foothill Exp. to skyline via Woodside / Old Lahonda, Page Mill etc. back in the 80's too and I remember that each have their strengths and weaknesses, but one thing all of them shared were cars wanting to get by when you're grunting up the hill or flying down trying to hold a corner at 30mph plus. I tended to ride alone or hith one or two other guys precisely because of this problem with 20 or 30 guys all trying to ride the same road at the same time. Bunching up is enevitable and pissing off drivers is equally enevitable. On the few wheeler rides I've done there it wasn't uncommon to have three, four or more cars being reasonably patient behind a group of less than courteous cyclists not paying attention to what's going on behind them. Cars flying by trying to get past isn't rare. Unfortunately as one of the Paramedics (MLS-31/32) that covered that road, cycling Vs. car accidents weren't rare either with a fatality almost every other year. Everyone knows you take your life in your hands riding those roads. The Answer? Who knows... String out and understand that while you may have the right of way, a car with a driver in a hurry or pissed off can flatten you or run you off the road before you know it. No news to any one who rides up there. Peace