# NO BIKES on El Monte?



## thien (Feb 18, 2004)

From the Western Wheelers Digest -



> From: "Jeff Orum"
> Subject: [wwbc] New "NO BIKES" sign on El Monte (Los Altos Hills)
> 
> Some time this week a "NO BIKES" sign was stenciled into the pavement as you are heading southeast on El Monte Road just past the intersection of Elena/Moody/College Loop. The only places bicycles can be prohibited are freeways (CVC 21960) and clearly this road is not that. So it would appear this ban is not allowed.
> ...


I agree with Jeff and think this is not only not allowed, but pretty lame.


Here are some photos by gmcpheeters on flickr of the intersection in question. https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/3091445130/


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

Agreed.

Pretty sure thats not enforceable, and Alan will work to get it sorted. I am really surprised that Council would give that directive without better legal advice.

Bad thing is that it will give false notice to motorists that the road would be clear of cyclists, or also may promote more agro driving when they do see a cyclist.


----------



## murphstahoe (Jun 1, 2006)

SVBC has sent a letter to Los Altos Hills. I have posted a link and a link to some research by Bob Shanteau on my blog - holierthanyou.blogspot.com in the comments of the entry.


----------



## thien (Feb 18, 2004)

murphstahoe said:


> SVBC has sent a letter to Los Altos Hills. I have posted a link and a link to some research by Bob Shanteau on my blog - holierthanyou.blogspot.com in the comments of the entry.


Thanks for the links! I'm curious what the response from Mr. Chiu and Los Altos Hills will be...


----------



## nowatt (Jan 14, 2008)

I sort of agree. But it is much safer to go on the new bike path through
foothill college. On that part of El Monte cars tend to follow you and
then try and past, but the visibilty is short and cars comming the other
way definately don't follow the speed limit (was 25, but I think someone
in Los Altos Hills complained and got it raised)


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Disgusting, for one...*

and, two, it makes me curious --

What are the limits of the kinds of laws that municipalities can enact? Like, if Nowhereseville, CA decides to make, I don't know, BLUE cars banned from their streets, can they do it? 

I know that roads through cities are paid for in most states (I'm not from CA) by a combination of funding sources, but that much of it comes from the state or county, not the municipality, and that this gives the state some control over the ways that roads are regulated.

I have visions of one-stoplight towns enacting similar knee-jerk regs...


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

The problem is that even if it is illegal or unenforceable, it emboldens motorists to be extra hostile to cyclists exerting their rights.




grrrah said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Pretty sure thats not enforceable, and Alan will work to get it sorted. I am really surprised that Council would give that directive without better legal advice.
> 
> Bad thing is that it will give false notice to motorists that the road would be clear of cyclists, or also may promote more agro driving when they do see a cyclist.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Ze sign is gone. Victory!!

fc


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

To bad they couldn't just change it to 

BIKES
ONLY


----------



## jmkimmel (Jul 13, 2007)

Rode through there this afternoon - sign is indeed gone. I obliged anyways, and cruised on the 'bike lane' along the parking lot in foothill college. It's still under construction, so a little dicey, but the main problem is that it was covered in a thin layer of construction-ey dirt, and was wet...so mighty sketchy on skinny tires. I'll take the road, thank you 

Proof!


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

"allowed to be pained."

Nice freudian!


----------



## rensho (Aug 5, 2003)

Anyone know how this was allowed to be pained in the first place?


----------



## Dr_John (Oct 11, 2005)

Nice going folks. Score one for the cyclists. :thumbsup: 

I've never rode El Monte in that direction, since I'm usually heading in the other direction from Foothill to climb Moody, but to quote thien, pretty lame. Nice to see the city respond so quickly.


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Jul 15, 2005)

WTF sort of Los Asstos NIMBY allows such madness to even come about? Having ridden up El Monte to Moody countless times (although not in in the recent few years), I think that this whole thing was completely moronic. Glad to hear that the decision had been reversed though.


----------



## sokudo (Dec 22, 2007)

This is funny. I mean besides all the talk of encroachment on rights of cyclists to ride every dangerous blind road without any shoulder. That is sacred, no question.
But now, when our rights are honored, and the world is restored to its most ideal state, let it be said that a comfortable and safe bike path is right there, and takes right care of that unsafe, shoulderless, blind, narrow and unappetizingly short climb that is the bone of contention.
Having ridden Page Mill via El Monte/Moody once or twice weekly since summer and number of times before that (and having never seen anyone riding it with lights concoctions more suitable for a lighted clown's nose, Chanukah menorah or Diwali), I'm yet to travel once on the disputed route since I discovered the bike path.
Try it, and you may like it.


----------

