Pulled Over By SFPD For Taking The Lane
On September October 15th, at about 2 PM, I was headed back to my apartment in Potrero/Dogpatch from the Tenderloin. I was headed down Golden Gate Ave. towards Market (about here). I was just passed Jones St., which meant the next intersection was where Golden Gate St. converged with Taylor St. and Market St. - at the bottom of the hill.
Some @#$%@## dude in a pickup truck buzzed me on my left - I guess I wasn’t paying attention and had not taken the lane, so I had drifted over to the right side of the right lane. I checked behind me and moved over to the left, taking the full right lane. A split second later another @#$%@## car rolls up behind me and actually beeps at me. I was thinking, ‘This #$@#$@@ guy is gonna get a serious stare-down.’ So I turn around, and the #$$%%# person is actually an SFPD cop in a gargantuan cop SUV. I couldn’t believe it. I knew this stuff happened in Alabama, but in San Francisco? What kind of @#@$@##@@ person would actually honk at a bicyclist, from right behind them, from a massive SUV? And wouldn’t you have to be living under a rock to be a cop in San Francisco and not actually know the biking laws? I mean, this stuff is not rocket science.
So, now I’m thinking WTFMFWTFAYT (band/song), and I pull over to the right to see what this guy’s problem is. He pulls up next to me, he’s some big, fat steroided-up dude in full SFPD regalia and he’s got some girl with him who was not in uniform. May be was trying to show off or something - I have no idea. He says, “You’re supposed to be all the way to the right.” Keep in mind that this is a one way street in downtown San Francisco, and it’s downhill, so it is, for all intents and purposes, a superhighway, and car drivers don’t like it when you slow them down to where they might actually be obeying the speed limit.
I say, “You’re supposed to stay as far to the right as is practicable, and there are exceptions - like what just happened to me. I got buzzed by a truck, that’s why I took the lane.” He says, “You’re supposed to be all the way over to the right.” I say, “That’s not the law!” He says, “Yes it is - you have to stay to the right.” I start thinking that going to jail for disagreeing with this @#$@@#@ obviously-misinformed officer of the law is not something I’m wanting to be doing today, so I say, “You’re wrong. That’s not the law,” and just shake my head while he disagrees again and drives off. @@#$#$%#.
Who knows how many other times this dude’s been on his crusade to remove bikers from the streets of San Francisco.
The problem is not so much that this guy was trying to act tough and escalate the situation, nor even that a regular law-abiding citizen had to be harassed by a San Francisco Police Department police officer in an SUV, but that this particular officer had no appreciation for the fact that he was telling me - and probably has been and probably will continue to tell other bikers - to put our lives in danger by staying to the right, no matter the situation.
The SFPD has a cycling training video that this particular officer obviously slept through.
I say let’s put this @#$@#$@ police officer on a bike for a day and let him gain a true appreciation for the laws of the State of California. He can spend the whole day pulling himself over and telling himself to stay to the right.
It’s odd because I’ve seen SFPD on bikes. I see them almost every day in the Tenderloin. I saw a cop up on Mission St. in the Excelsior today - from where he was riding on car-choked Mission St., it seemed like he was looking to get doored, but at least he was on a bike.
If we got rid of many of the unnecessary car patrols in the city, we could probably add an extra 100 bicycle officers to the City police force. Those cars are incredibly expensive to buy, operate, and maintain. It’s just throwing money away.
I talked to two more cops on the way through SoMa just to see if the Governator had executive-ordered some law while I wasn’t looking, and they both knew the law - they said, ‘Yeah - stay to the right if you can, but if you feel it’s at all dangerous just take the lane.’ I was a bit relieved. One cop said, “[The cop] was probably just looking out for your best interests.” I was like, “No. No, he wasn’t.”
But San Francisco is not the only town with ignorant cops - Oakland’s got some, too:
Oakland police Sgt. Jamie Lee says bicyclists want full reign of both the streets and sidewalks. “It’s a hypocrisy,” he said. “ Bicyclists want a share of the road, but they do not abide by the traffic rules. You cannot ride your bike on the sidewalk, and you cannot cross the street using the cross walk.” By law, bicyclists must remain on the far right of the road while on their bikes, unless they are making a left turn at an intersection. “They need to follow the same rules as vehicles if they want to be treated as such,” Lee said.
In what is supposed to be one of the strongest areas in the nation for biking, our cops don’t even know the law.
Condition 3., below, is what often forces smart bicyclists to ‘take the lane’. It is legal, as it should be. I think we all need to start carrying this stuff on a card in our wallets so we can perform some remedial education of San Francisco and Oakland Police Department officers when we get harassed for trying to stay alive.
The relevant portion of the law is below:
21202. (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.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.
…Just in case anyone is unclear on California Law:
…p.s. Thanks to Margaret Pye for the efforts, and to tipster from sfbike email list.
Leave comment (11)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
October 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Let me ask you this….. Do you stop at every stop sign? Do you wait at every red light? Do you yield when you are impeding the flow of traffic??
These are all laws that bicyclists break everyday in SF. EVERYDAY!!! I would bet a months salary that you break these laws everyday too. Don’t be a hypocrite. Learn to SHARE the road, not whine and complain because YOU can’t get your way. Geeez, bicyclists like you give all a bad name!!!
October 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Do you stop at every stop sign? Do you wait at every red light? Do you yield when you are impeding the flow of traffic??
what does any of this have to do with getting harassed by SFPD for obeying the intent and letter of the law?
These are all laws that bicyclists break everyday in SF. EVERYDAY!!!
it would be ridiculous to start comparing how many laws motorists break, vs. how many law cyclists break, vs. how many laws cops break, vs. how many laws motorist cops break, vs. how many laws bicycle cops break - EVERYDAY. what’s the point?
one thing is for certain, though — we can be sure that motorists and cops not only break more laws, and do it more often and more regularly than cyclists, and since there are more of them they are obviously committing more of the crimes, but these outlaw motorists are also much more dangerous to the public health when they break the law than when cyclists break the law.
let’s get real, here - outlaw car driving needs to stop. it’s killing us - sometimes literally.
this whole concept of ‘the outlaw cyclist’ is a complete fraud. the concept of ‘the outlaw driver’ is very real, however, and very dangerous. outlaw drivers are a major public safety hazard, and we need to get them under control.
I would bet a months salary that you break these laws everyday too. Don’t be a hypocrite.
someone is a hypocrite because they don’t like being pulled over for obeying the law? you’re gonna have to explain that one to me.
if there’s any hypocrisy, it’s on the part of outlaw drivers who complain about cyclists while those drivers happily break every law on the books - run stop signs, blow red lights, exceed not only posted speed limits but reasonable speeds when in and around other traffic, etc. the list of crimes committed by motorists EVERYDAY - often with dire consequences for other drivers, and pedestrians and cyclists - goes on and on. it’s a grave problem of epidemic proportions and we can’t afford to ignore it any longer. the sooner we clamp down on outlaw motorists, the better off our society will be.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“Motorists break more laws, and do it more often and more regularly than cyclists.”
In Oakland most cyclists I see cruise through stop signs and red lights without slowing down. Occasionally, I’ll say out the window, “Red lights are for you, too.” Three times out of four the cyclist waves the finger.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
“…getting harassed by SFPD for obeying the intent and letter of the law”? You were harassed? Why, because a highly trained police officer didn’t think you should have “taken the lane”? The intent and letter of the law is that you stay closer to the right as possible. You even said that you saw a bicycle cop riding to the right but you thought he would get “doored”. I say that the cop was trying to go with the “intent of the law” and stay to the right. Also, the traffic code is very clear that you can not impede the flow of traffic. That includes bicyclists. When you “take the lane” and fail to go the speed limit you are impeding traffic.
You state that more motorists and cops break the law then bicyclists. That is completely false!! I have been an officer for 15 years and my experience is that far more bicyclists break the law then motorists. And the truth is in over 70% of accidents involving bicyclists, the bicyclist is deemed at fault (failing to stop, entering the roadway from the sidewalk, etc…). So I would say that it is not the motorists that are killing bicyclists, but the bicyclists themselves! As for cops breaking the law, the very nature of our job requires that we speed, roll stop signs, bust red lights, etc. When you call the cops because someone is stealing your bike, do want us to go 25 mph, and stop at every stop sign, or do you want us to get there as safe and as FAST as possible?? Not every call allows us to go lights and sirens, but we do try to get there as soon as possible.
And you are a hypocrite when you complain about how motorists break laws and you ride around town breaking them all the time. And if that cop thought you were wrong then he thought you were wrong. Laws are not always black and white and can be interpreted in very close but different ways. That is why there is traffic court!!!
The roads need to be shared, but both motorists and bicyclists need to understand that their rights of the road do not supercede others rights.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Why, because a highly trained police officer didn’t think you should have “taken the lane”?
if a police officer is a cyclist - either on-duty or in his/her spare time - then that could conceivably bestow upon that officer the requisite expertise - ‘training’ if you will - to know when a cyclist has illegally taken the lane. without proper training in bicycle law and sufficient experience riding a bicycle in traffic, an officer cannot reasonably be considered ‘highly trained’ in any meaningful way for duty in San Francisco.
in this particular situation, it was apparent that the officer had never been on a bike, because if he was, he would have immediately recognized the necessity of taking the lane on this speedway to protect oneself from passing traffic in a lane that was too narrow to safely accommodate a motorist and a cyclist at the same time, side by side. This is, in fact, why the law was written as it was written - to specifically allow for the ‘taking of the lane’.
this stuff is not rocket science, but it does require knowledge/experience/expertise - things which I expect every officer of the law to possess, and if they are more ignorant on topics of cycling than they should be then i expect them to defer to me, the cyclist on the road, because it is my safety that is at stake.
which raises the question, under what circumstances is it OK for a police officer to question the right of a cyclist to take the lane?
is it every time a cyclist decides to take the lane?
every time a cyclist takes the lane and a motorist disapproves?
if we want to encourage more car driving, then we should tell officers to question cyclists’ use of the full lane more regularly.
since there was no bike lane on this stretch of roadway - which I linked-to above, so you can get a Google Street View - wouldn’t any officer with common sense and knowledge of the law have to conclude that i, cyclist person generally in fear for my life and well-being, was taking the lane to save my skin? wouldn’t that be the appropriate operating assumption?
yes - it would be.
this officer was annoyed that a cyclist was asserting his legal right to the road, and impeding the officer’s ability to continue to break the law by speeding through downtown.
i should note that I did not get a ticket, because the officer was unsure of himself when i told him he was wrong - and did so forcefully - at least twice. he wouldn’t write me a ticket because it would be a waste of his time to further harass me just to see a judge laugh the ticket out of court. and then his Superior would get a bent letter from a citizen cyclist who didn’t appreciate being harassed, and ‘would you please get this over-sized officer on a bike so he can gain some appreciation for what is going on out there.’
I say that the cop was trying to go with the “intent of the law” and stay to the right.
could be. i think he probably didn’t know how much risk he was putting himself at, but that’s his prerogative.
the point is that he has the right to the full use of the lane when he needs it to stay safe - more specifically, when the road cannot safely accommodate a cyclist and a motorist at the same time. many riders often choose to put themselves at greater risk by staying to the right side of the road than they should - including me. often we just don’t want to face the cowardly wrath of motorists.
just google ‘doored‘ to see how common it is for cyclists to stay away from outlaw motorists, even if it means putting themselves at great risk.
Also, the traffic code is very clear that you can not impede the flow of traffic
That’s only partially true, or partially false - this ‘impede’ part of the law is only applicable under certain circumstances. Read the law as I’ve quoted it above - the whole thing. Make particular note of the word ‘except’ - it is important in this context.
far more bicyclists break the law then motorists
Now you’re just going to make me break out the statistics, aren’t you?
Even though more motorists break more laws every day than do cyclists, and are appropriately cited for them every day, it would still not be definitive proof that motorists are the true outlaws, but it might be a worthy exercise. I’ll see if i can find the time.
Of greater significance is the risk to public health that law-breaking motorists pose. A bicyclist running a stop sign is not nearly as dangerous as a motorist running a stop sign - the former is usually harmless, the latter can often be deadly.
If 10,000 bicyclists ran 10,000 stop signs, each, in San Francisco every day (for a total of 100,000,000 law-breaking episodes), the collective risk to public health that those 100,000,000 crimes posed _might_ be equivalent to the risk posed by a single car running a single stop sign on that same day in San Francisco. A single car crime is much more dangerous to the public health than a single bicycle crime - by orders of magnitude.
Of course, we know that just about every car that enters the city limits of San Francisco breaks just about every speed limit on every road they travel while in the city. The only thing that temporarily slows these outlaw drivers down is traffic.
As for cops breaking the law, the very nature of our job requires
um, yeah. c’mon, everyone knows that cops joyride and run lights and speed and do whatever whenever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want - there doesn’t have to be any sort of crime or pursuit or anything like that going on. and really, i don’t particularly care at all. why would i? they’re just (mostly-) harmless traffic crimes - maybe some ‘abuse of authority’-type stuff - but mostly harmless (we’re only talking about traffic crimes, here). further, it seems most people don’t care. every time we see a cop run a red light, speed, double- and triple-park, whatever — we just mutter, ‘cops.’ it’s not a big deal. Republican. Democrat. Cops. Not-cops. Whatever. Everybody knows the game. It’s not a big deal. It happens all the time.
but start harassing us, and _that’s_ when stuff gets hectic.
And you are a hypocrite when you complain about how motorists break laws and you ride around town breaking them all the time.
yes - we’re all hypocrites at some level. the question is, at what point does the ‘hypocrisy’ charge become meaningful?
in this case, it is not. i don’t run stop signs and red lights because i like breaking the law - i do it because the laws are unfair, and need to be changed (and will be changed).
further, i don’t protest driver law-breaking when they do it outside the vicinity of innocent human beings that can and are harmed by that law-breaking. outside of my city, outlaw motorists can go punch it all day long and sail right off a cliff for all i care - just don’t endanger me or my fellow active transport people.
i will raise the issue of motorist law-breaking when necessary to kill this deceit about cyclist law-breaking — the two are not morally comparable. motorist law-breaking often kills, cyclist law-breaking rarely kills.
The roads need to be shared, but both motorists and bicyclists need to understand that their rights of the road do not supercede others rights.
there is an inherent problem with this line of thinking — i know it’s old fashioned and “hey, can’t we all just get along?” — but the reality is that when cars and cyclists share the same space, cars dominate by nature of the fact that they can and often are used as deadly weapons. the whole notion that cars and cyclists can ever be ‘equal’ while sharing the same roadway is a fantasy. it can never happen — it will never be true. even when the laws are heavily slanted to favor non-car modes of transportation, as in some European cities, pedestrians and cyclists are _still_ not safe from motorists - as long as there are deadly weapons moving about, pedestrians and cyclists will always be terrified - for themselves, for their children, etc.
i understand the sentiment, and in general it’s not a terrible sentiment - it just doesn’t reflect reality. cars are killers - direct and indirect - and we need to clamp down on their use in just about every way imaginable.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The unproven claim that cyclists break more laws than motorists–a claim for which no unbiased statistics nor sound reasoning has been provided–is a red herring. Even if that claim were true–and it isn’t obviously so–it would still have absolutely no bearing on a cyclists’ right to take the whole lane when necessary, as in the scenario noted here, nor would it absolve SFPD from wrongly stopping a cyclist for literally following the letter and spirit of the law.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I guess bike riders are more dangerous than crack, needles and junkies. who knew… Thanks kamala.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I would say it’s unbelievable for a cop to give you a hard time about taking the lane on a downhill stretch, if the road is fairly narrow. That’s almost like asking to die - and you point out there was parallel parking too, so you could have been doored? Hell yes, take the lane and live.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I feel especially inclined to take the whole lane when I am going fast enough that motorists really shouldn’t be going faster than me anyway. Also, if I am going that fast then the risk of being doored is even greater, with less time to react/stop.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The idea that a bicyclist taking over the lane is in any way dangerous to motorists is laughable on it’s face. Peter Smith’s point that “we need to clamp down on [automobile] use in just about every way imaginable” is spot on for dense urban areas like the Tenderloin; almost no one who lives there (including me) has a car and the harder we can make it for cars in my neighborhood, the better. Keep it up!
October 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
“if a police officer is a cyclist - either on-duty or in his/her spare time - then that could conceivably bestow upon that officer the requisite expertise”…
So the only way a police officer can enforce bicycle laws is if they ride a bike?? Really??? That is some strange logic. I don’t rob banks, but I surely can enforce laws related to robbery. I would say that six months in the Police Academy, 15 weeks of field training, one year of probation, and 40 hours a week of enforcing laws would more than qualify a police officer to enforce traffic laws. Alot more than some guy riding a bike around town!!
“which raises the question, under what circumstances is it OK for a police officer to question the right of a cyclist to take the lane?”
A police officer is allowed to detain any person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are committing a crime, “whether or not a crime was committed”. So to answer your question an officer can stop you anytime they feel you are breaking the law. Like I said laws are not always crystal clear, black and white, or perfect. Just because you think you had the right to take the lane, that officer may feel that you had room to stay to the right. Just because you fear getting doored doesn’t mean you can take the lane all the time. And I looked at the satellite photo you linked too and I see a large bobtail truck on the street and I can tell there would be room for you to hug the right to allow cars to pass. Like I said, not black and white but both of you were reasonable in your views. And you assume the officer didn’t write you a ticket because he was unsure, I submit that he was being “reasonable” and could see where you thought you had the right to take the lane. Push come to shove though, he could have written the ticket and who really knows what the judge would rule!
“do whatever whenever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want - there doesn’t have to be any sort of crime or pursuit or anything like that going on”
Again, really??? You know so little about police work. To use your earlier analogy about needing to right a bike to enforce the law then, if you have never been a cop, then you can’t give an opinion about how we operate! (at least we are trained in laws, you should join the citizens academy). I can see where the public is ignorant when it comes to police work, as most people really don’t want to know the harsh reality of what we do, see and deal with. That is understandable, but to say that cops do whatever they want all the time , for whatever reason is just silly and childish. We are not going to speed, bust red lights, etc. just because we can (and the courts have been consistent on this, when we have a need to , we can break traffic laws). We do it to make the streets safer for you
You say that you run stop signs and red lights everyday. That is true of almost all bicyclists, but not of motorists!! When you take into account all the laws that are broken daily by motorists and bicyclists, the bicyclists are in the majority here!! But, I do agree with you that a bicyclist breaking these laws are a far less danger to society then cars. This is why I almost never write tickets to bicyclists, and instead give warnings, like that cop did you. But saying the laws are unfair and will be changed is asinine. How are you going to say bikes should go through red lights and stop signs?? What happens when a bicyclist does this and causes the accident, who do you determine who is at fault?? I see bikes bomb through stop signs at 20-30 mph. There is no way that you can tell if you have the right away at that speed. It is insane. And even if you think you can see both ways before busting a red light, what if a car pulls out of a parking spot and goes through the green and doesn’t see you running the red?? No, the laws need to stay and people need to be more responsible and stop thinking they are special and deserve special treatment!! And good luck finding statistics on who breaks more laws, as there is no way to track that!
And it is truly sad that you don’t think the roads can be shared. They have been shared for a long time, and for the most part, are done so safely and fairly. It is the radicals that always want to make a controversy where none exists. We will never have the nirvana that you are looking for, but when people are reasonable and respect each others rights, then we can improve it even more. Good luck and ride safe!