CA Legal Question

[keysersoze310]

Saw a sign on a pathway this weekend that stated "No Motorized Bicycles" in addition to the usual "No Motorized Vehicles." This is the first time I've seen one of these signs.

I understand that in California legally an ebike is not a motorized vehicle, but is it a motorized bicycle? Or is this just to prohibit gas bikes?

 

[Rassy]

Good question. I ride in Northern California on occaision and would take the position that it refers to gas powered bicycles. However, I would be prepared to have to defend myself.

Might try to find the legal ordinance that established this rule. In Oregon, an entity such as a municipal park, can not ban electric assist bikes from bicycle areas without first establishing a formal law or regulation. I.e., a member of the board can't just arbitrarily make the decision. This is somewhere in the Oregon laws that cover electric assist bicycles.

I do think that California has two formal definitions of motorized bicycles, one being the moped category and the other being what most states call an electric assisted category. It was confusing to read the way they did it, but still would give room to argue either way.

Edit: Where is this path and who owns or controls it?

 

[keysersoze310]

Edit: Where is this path and who owns or controls it?

Its called veterans parkway and it goes through Hermosa and Manhattan beach. Its mainly a jogging path, but it has an intermittent 1 mile stretch of singletrack on the side that's kinda fun. Not sure which city owns it.

I was just surprised to see this sign as I though ebikes could go anywhere a normal bike could.

 

[Ykick]

Edit: Where is this path and who owns or controls it?

Its called veterans parkway and it goes through Hermosa and Manhattan beach. Its mainly a jogging path, but it has an intermittent 1 mile stretch of singletrack on the side that's kinda fun. Not sure which city owns it.

I was just surprised to see this sign as I though ebikes could go anywhere a normal bike could.

Problems come when local governments over rule state law with regard to bicycles and/or ebikes. Plus, if some greenhorn park officer figures out you have a "motor" and things can get much stickier. I believe those signs are intended for Gassers and as long as you don't make obvious noise, stink and/or ride like an ass, most Barney Fife's will never even know or care what you're doing.

Missus and I rode all around Yosemite a while back. Plenty of "no motorized bicycle" signs and we ran into several rangers but none seemed to care that we were "assisted" by electricity. We covered so much ground and were able to enjoy parts of the park otherwise would've never had time to reach.

 

[Rin]

I have seen the same sign on many bike trails in California that I ride on. I have never been challenged, however, I might add I have never seen a ranger or cop on any of the trails. Most people think you have a regular bike. I have never asked anyone about it, I think some things are best left unsaid.

The law related to trails is here and I think that includes electric powered bikes:

Motorized Bicycles: Prohibited Operation

21207.5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation.

Amended Ch. 373, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.

 

[Rin]

Your post got me to looking up to see if I can find definition of motorized bike and here it is.

What is a moped or motorized bicycle?

There are two types of motorized bicycles, defined in the California Vehicle Code (VC) Sections 406(a) and 406(b).
Section 406(a) VC refers to a moped or motorized bicycle as any two or three wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, has an automatic transmission, and a motor which produces less than 2 gross brake horespower and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on level ground.
Section 406(b) VC refers to a motorized bicycle as a device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an electric motor that:
Has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts;
Is incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour on level ground; and
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.

 

[keysersoze310]

Thanks for the info, it seems pretty clear that in CA the law is "no ebikes on trails". For some reason I thought that there were contradictory laws on this subject but I must be mistaken. When I'm on trails I'll try to be extra stealthy so people don't notice I'm on an ebike. I think it will be pretty obvious though when I'm climbing a 25% grade hill without too much of a struggle.

 

[gogo]

Thanks for the info, it seems pretty clear that in CA the law is "no ebikes on trails". For some reason I thought that there were contradictory laws on this subject but I must be mistaken. When I'm on trails I'll try to be extra stealthy so people don't notice I'm on an ebike. I think it will be pretty obvious though when I'm climbing a 25% grade hill without too much of a struggle.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21207_5.html

V C Section 21207.5 Motorized Bicycles Prohibited Operation

Motorized Bicycles: Prohibited Operation

21207.5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation.

Amended Ch. 373, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.

Note the 1980 date. I think they are talking about mopeds and bikes with gasser motors, but what do you have to lose by asking the local authorities whether they intended to ban the ebike variety of "motorized bicycle" along with the other?

 

[Lemlux]

If you are 62 or older you qualify as a senior citizen. If you pull a trailer you can assert that you are driving a motorized tricycle which can be driven up to 30mph by senior citizens and handicapped individuals on pedestrian paths according to section 407 of the code effective 1994. No moped license or M2 (moped) / M1 (motorcycle) endorsement on the driver's license is required.

I'm a 65 year old that makes use of this senior citizen benefit.


V C Section 407 Motorized Quadricycle and Motorized Tricycle


" Motorized Quadricycle and Motorized Tricycle

407. A "motorized quadricycle" is a four-wheeled device, and a "motorized tricycle" is a three-wheeled device, designed to carry not more than two persons, including the driver, and having either an electric motor or a motor with an automatic transmission developing less than two gross brake horsepower and capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on level ground. The device shall be utilized only by a person who by reason of physical disability is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian or by a senior citizen as defined in Section 13000.

Amended Ch. 1292, Stats. 1993. Effective January 1, 1994."

 

[Rassy]

Yes, but you have to give up your driver's license to get the senior citizen identification card. The following is from section 13000:

(c) An identification card may be issued to a person in exchange
for the person's driver's license which is surrendered to the
department for either of the following reasons:
(1) The person has a physical or mental condition and requests
cancellation of the driver's license.
(2) The department has revoked the person's driving privilege
based on the person's physical or mental condition.
That card shall be issued without the payment of any additional
fee.

 

[Lemlux]

I previously called the DMV and asked if I had to have a senior citizen card if I already had my driver's license. The lady on the phone talked with her coworkers for about 5 minutes and said they didn't know if the Senior card was necessary, but suggested that I come in and get one (in addition to my drivers license card) just in case a LEO insisted that I needed the senior card. The advice I received was that I could hold both cards. I suspect that the act of surrendering the DL results in a waiver of any fee that would be charged to a person who wanted both the senior card and a DL.

I haven't bothered to try to get a senior card without surrendering my DL yet, but I probably should.

My DMV search for section 1300 shows me the following:

"V C Section 13000 Identification Cards

Identification Cards

13000. (a) The department may issue an identification card to any person attesting to the true full name, correct age, and other identifying data as certified by the applicant for the identification card.

(b) Any person 62 years of age or older may apply for, and the department upon receipt of a proper application therefor shall issue, an identification card bearing the notation "Senior Citizen".

(c) Every application for an identification card shall be signed and verified by the applicant before a person authorized to administer oaths and shall be supported by bona fide documentary evidence of the age and identity of the applicant as the department may require, and shall include a legible print of the thumb or finger of the applicant.

(d) Any person 62 years of age or older, and any other qualified person, may apply for, or possess, an identification card under the provisions of either subdivision (a) or (b), but not under both of those provisions.

Amended Sec. 7, Ch. 1008, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.
Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 326, Stats. 2003. Effective January 1, 2004. "

 

[dogman dan]

Well, at the very least you might consider keeping your speed below 40 mph on that trail then.

A LOT is going to depend on what you are riding, and how you ride it. If you are an ass, you have a problem. If you bike throws peoples shoes off, you have a problem.

And the rest is going to depend on how any enforcing authority views your bike, and how you ride it.

True stealth could help a lot, but I bet a lot more is going to be a judgement of how you are riding. I bet they wouldn't care if your bike is slilent, traveling 15 mph, and you are riding courteously. But if you are whizzing along at 30 mph, they might object even if you are the only person on the trail.

Personally, I'd ride the trail at reasonable speeds and be nice. I'd stop only when ticketed, and I become the guy they recognize next time they see me.

 

[Lemlux]

Dogman: Courteous, defensive travel is a must. I remember a ride last year last year on one of these paths where a came upon a road bike with a tacoed front wheel and bent fork that had plowed into a pedestrian. Both the lycra'd male rider and the female exercise walker were being attended to by paramedics next to their presumably authorized ambulance.

From the damage done to the bike I estimate that the rider was pedalling well above 20mph when he plowed into the lady who probably made an unanticipated positional shift on the path when he attempted to pass her. Around here the etiquitte for passing seems to be an "On your left" call out to a slower rider or pedestrian followed by observation of that person's response. Some will initially move to the left instead of the right so time must be provided to respond to a passee's inappropriate movement.

 

[Rassy]

Lemlux, you may be right on all that "senior citizen" stuff, but I'd be weary about getting involved with DMV at that level after my quick read of the 13000 sections of the code. The part I quoted earlier was under 13002 and it seems to all tie together but in their typically murky way.

It would be pretty nasty to get the senior citizen card and then find out that your actual drivers license had been cancelled.

I'm with you 100% for riding "nice" and thus avoiding the issue altogether.

 

[dogman dan]

When I first started skiing, you called on your left, or on your right, and then passed at any speed. That was early 70's. Worked great. Back then, only skiers were there who knew how to act and not so many of em any day.

By 1980, we'd all learned that if you said left, the dummy would trun left right into you. For a few years, I just froze em in place with a rebel yell of some kind. Then I said screw this, and just started skiing in the wilderness or the forest in between the runs. There was just too many dorks inside ski area boundaries unless you were at Taos or Crested Butte.

Same thing now with bike trails, you gotta either tone down to match the slowest dumbest person out there, or get off. Now that I'm old, I can stand toning in down a lot better. Fortunately , most of the year it's so hot here I have the bike trail to myself.

 

[Ykick]

Yelling at people from behind rarely seems to work as intended for me and other riders I've witnessed doing it. More often than not, the recipients do what DogMan says and move towards the wrong direction.

My "old fart" rule is that if you need to yell instructions to people on paths, you're probably traveling faster than you can take evasive action. In other words, SLOW DOWN to the point that you can handle someone doing the worst possible thing at the worst possible moment. Reason being Murphy's Law, sooner or later they will...

 

[deardancer3]

Had lunch in San Diego suburbs today, happen to be where quite a few police types were eating.

After we were all getting up to leave, I ask them about the ebike on paths issues.

They responded that it was compicated due to conflicting laws about the ebike definition versus gas bikes, and who had what law; So unless they see someone doing something obviously unsafe or illegal, they have lots more important issues to chase, and dont bother with such things as motorized bikes on paths.

just one pice of data from soCal.

d

 

[Phoebus]

Lots of ~49cc gasser beach cruisers in SoCal. These signs are for the gassers.

Letter of the law, who knows.

 

[dogman dan]

Figures SD cops would be copacetic. That's been my "tourist" impression. Other places, you could run into cops with instructions to police the path strictly. Perhaps in that case, cops who's beat is only the stupid path rules. Like a state park cop or something.

For sure when my path is crowded, like at dawn on summer mornings, you have to pass all pedestrians at 5 mph. Once it gets too crowded because my ride time is too much the same time the walkers like, I start taking other routes.

 

[Dauntless]

Well, I guess it's less about exactly what the law is and more about what is getting enforced, as Dogman and Ykick are pointing out. It's not legal to ride on the city sidewalks in California, yet the local law enforcement here won't do anything about the cyclists who yell at pedestrians to get out of their way then run people down from behind at 20mph or more. (A couple of them beat a homeless guy to death for what their own departmental investigation said was no reason, if they'd been off protecting the sidewalks right then. . . .)

If your bike doesn't look like there's a motor, your chances are good. If the local city is hoping to pick up a few bucks any way they can right now, your chances get worse. Ride the way sane people do and don't draw attention, you might be fine. But it's not just the state law, their might be a city or county ordinance involved.

Myself I'd see that sign and I probably wouldn't ride there at all. I'd be thinking about how the court appearance would probably be in the People's Republic of Santa Monica, with some activist judge that probably lives in the PRSM. Ruing the fact that he lacks the tools of justice of the far east, such as caning and sending people to work in the fields. For God's sake, be CAREFUL out there.

 

[Beachcruzer]

I'm in Orange County, where the local law enforcement all work as prison guards for a number of years before being transitioned to the streets. Tends to make them cranky. At the high school I pass on my way to work every day, an OC sherriff's deputy gunned down an off-duty Marine in front of his two daughters. The investigation is ongoing, but it looks like a case of the Marine failing to kowtow to the deputy's authority, compounded by the Marine being black. That was a couple of weeks ago, and about 15 minutes from the place where local cops beat the homeless man to death as Dauntless mentioned. All that is preamble to say that for the first time in my life, law enforcement in my jurisdiction does not make me feel safer.

That said, I went bombing down the beach at 25-30 mph in broad daylight the other day. Stopped at a surf break called Rivieras to watch the waves, and about five minutes later a lifeguard rolls up in a pickup, just like on Baywatch except he was a dude and he had his shirt on.

"For future reference, there are no motorized vehicles allowed on the beach," he says calmly.

"Okay," I say.

And he drives all the way back to his tower about a mile down the beach.

I thought, well that guy handled it just right. And yeah, I should keep my speed in check when I ride on the beach, especially when I'm in view of the tower. Also, if I hadn't stopped to look at those waves he never would have caught me.

 

[dogman dan]

Yeah, the guards will give you a break if it's the first time they see you for sure. OC sherrifs, I wouldn't want to mess with.

 

[deardancer3]

.... It's not legal to ride on the city sidewalks in California, .

Curious where that info came from. My last check into this was that California says that it is illegal to ride on sidewalks "unless riden in a safe and curteous manner". However cities have the right to outlaw any bikes at any place.... which some have done, but, I thought the state said ok unless the city said other wise.

did you come up with some new statutes stating other wise?

thanks

d

 

[Lemlux]

Attached is the DMV's rules of the road.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm

The 6th bullet point under bicycles reads:

•Shall ride as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practical– not on the sidewalk.

The relevant statute(s) isn't (aren't) mentioned.

I imagine that this no-sidewalk riding restriction has resulted in the establishment of off-road bike paths and on-road bike lanes.

 

[Dauntless]

When I was growing up the no sidewalk and no crosswalk was strictly enforced, got one of the tickets at 6am when I was the only one there and boy was Mom pissed. I was 11 when that bike was stolen, so I was under 13 for any of those particular bike laws. Over the years I've seen plenty of it. It's just in the last few years that the sidewalk has become a bowlingn alley right here, with the pedestrians as the pins. The story is a few months ago a guy ran through the crowd to meet the yelling cyclist head on, they both flew into the street. (Someone was an instant hero.) There's a growing support for stopping these jerks and pitching them off the bikes, I've noticed when i turn and face them they'll skid to a stop, so I supposed there's been a few pitched. Meanwhile, although California is a 'Fair Import' state, (Must be written law on the books) there is still 'Agency Law' where they simply enforce something like ALL riding on the sidewalk as unsafe, it's what the department tells them to do, department policy then takes on the power of law. You'd be amazed how much of that goes on.

So a few weeks after Kelly Thomas, I had just stepped into the crosswalk when I heard a shouted profanity and took a shoulder into mine, the one that was still hurting from an accident. Boy, was HE lucky there was a black and white AND the infamous unmarked "RoboCop" car so much has been said about recently both after him. Then again, maybe not. He tried to play BUMPER CARS with them, and the RoboCop car swerved away at first, then apparently thought "Wait a minute." So the guy was knocked off the bike and gang tackled right in front of maybe a dozen standing outside the restaurant/BAR that was the only thing open that evening. (Coincidence?) I'm thinking 'All that for ME????' but apparently they were looking for a drunk that had started a fight several blocks away and rode off, when he hit me that convinced them this was their boy. Or at least that was their story, I still have to wonder if this was a dog and pony show to get people seeing the local cops can take a guy down the right way afterall. There were all these cheering drunks in front of that bar, the guy would apparently have barreled into them if he was for real.

So yeah, there's real reasons to enforce laws on the cyclist. I'm just saying if they allow bikes on your trail, ride like you're an ordinary cyclist and you'll probably be fine. Wish I could find the one story where the cyclist was riding where he shouldn't have been then threatened the guy who said something about it only to take a bullet in his helmet, which stopped the bullet. I think the cyclist was arrested for child endangerment because he had his kid on the bike, it was an amazing tale. Don't remember if I ever learned what they did to the shooter, if anything.