Is it illegal to block bike lanes in SF? I ask because it is not illegal to do so in California, according to the learner's permit test my daughter recently took.
If so, then the DMV test is (presumably) wrong. California Vehicle Code §21211 says it's generally illegal to block a bike lane:
"No person may place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law."
Checking the DMV handbook, their description is similar. They say "it is illegal to drive in a bicycle lane unless you are parking (where permitted)" - plus turning or entering/exiting the road. [Source: CA Driver's Handbook, pp. 17, emphasis mine]
Note that 21209 does not say "otherwise permitted" but "permitted." One interpratation (perhaps what the DMV is using) is that, since curb parking is generally permitted, parking in a bike lane that abuts the curb would also be generally permitted.
The city I live in put up "no parking in bike lane" signs everywhere, presumably to address this ambiguity.
FWIW the DMV test question was bad in other ways; it was a multiple choice asking "Which of these is not an illegal place to park:" with the correct answer being "in a bike lane." My daughter got it wrong not just because of not knowing the answer, but also because the double-negative confused her.
What was the double negative? You haven't included one in your telling of the question ("Which of these is not an illegal place to park:" with the correct answer being "in a bike lane." - that's just a single negative...)
Ah, I hadn't thought of illegal as counting for a double negative - it's not one for how I think, but I totally see both why you said it and why it would be a double negative for some people! Thanks for explaining
The DMV is unfortunately wrong about this, with an invalid interpretation of CVC - the DMV handbook is NOT the law (it's a simplistic layman's interpretation), and is not a valid legal defense.
That said, in SF proper it's absolutely inarguably illegal as a violation called "Obstructing traffic" in the SF transportation code. A bike lane is an active travel lane for vehicles as defined under the CVC (including bicycles), and therefore stopping in one is illegal just like stopping in a car lane. I've had drivers cited for this in the past.
Yeah, they ignore SF311 reports by policy. I've managed it by flagging down an amazingly helpful parking control officer that happened to be in the area, or else by calling and reporting an obstruction of traffic (not mentioning the bike lane) and then waiting until the PCO arrived and talking to them.
The officers have almost always been helpful, but I think they generally tend towards lower confrontation and more "efficient" violations like street sweeping or expired meters by default (or perhaps directed by management).
This was years ago when I was younger and had more free time. I called SFMTA traffic directly (you learn the menu tree quickly). It varied but I want to say it usually took between 20 minutes to over an hour, including multiple callbacks to check on status and ensure they knew I was serious
Thank you for sharing that. It clears up my confusion. I thought perhaps you had found some magic way to get them to do something without you needing to disrupt your day.
It doesn't seem worth the time investment, as it won't have any effect beyond the particular incident you're reporting. It won't increase the threat of enforcement such that people decide not to break the law.
It is for light rail/trolleys (not buses) and only when you're on a two-way road and there's room to pass on the right. It also applies when they're moving, not just when they're stopped.
Basically, if a trolley/light rail has tracks in one of the left lanes of a two-way road, you must pass on the right unless directed otherwise by a traffic cop.
The reason is that these vehicles obstruct vision and you're not allowed to overtake and pass on the left when you can't see oncoming traffic or when approaching an intersection/grade/curve/oncoming traffic or your view of a bridge/viaduct/tunnel within 100 feet is obstructed.
I don't think needing to pass on the right is a defense against driving on the sidewalk. I think it just implies that you cannot pass while they are picking up passengers.
Yeah I think the intention is to prevent someone who disembarked from the bus and are then crossing the street from getting mowed down by a car overtaking from the bus's left. It's similar to why you can't pass a school bus when it has its stop sign out.
It was clearly a typo in the book. There’s even a diagram showing that people are loading from the right, and a sentence saying you pass on that side while passengers are loading.
If they meant “don’t pass while it is stopped”, they would have said that instead of writing the equivalent of “you can pass when [false]”
