# Permit needed to ride on Santa Clara County Roads?



## singlespeed.org (Feb 14, 2006)

Received an email on this, and thought it would be of interest here:

_The Santa Clara County Roads Departments has proposed an ordinance that would require an encroachment permit for “special events”, and declares “An organized procession of 50 or more bicycles shall be considered a Special Event unless the procession will be conducted in accordance with all requirements of the California Vehicle Code Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4.”_
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/sccpermit

Note - the Road Bike Review group rides, among others, could easily fall under this category, if the 50 person amount was reached...

Whaddayathink?


----------



## thien (Feb 18, 2004)

I doubt it would be enforceable on a roadbikereview group ride. We don't hand out numbers, we don't hand out bracelets... and most importantly, we're usually pretty spread out.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

singlespeed.org said:


> Received an email on this, and thought it would be of interest here:
> 
> _The Santa Clara County Roads Departments has proposed an ordinance that would require an encroachment permit for “special events”, and declares “An organized procession of 50 or more bicycles shall be considered a Special Event unless the procession will be conducted in accordance with all requirements of the California Vehicle Code Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4.”_
> http://bikesiliconvalley.org/sccpermit
> ...


It doesn't seem to mean anything. CVC Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4 is just the section for bicycles. So you can have an organized ride of 500 bikes, and as long as they're obeying the laws, it wouldn't be a procession requiring a permit. The interesting thing is that getting the permit seems to exempt you from the law- maybe through street closures and the like, as done for parades and bike races.


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

California L33 said:


> It doesn't seem to mean anything. CVC Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4 is just the section for bicycles. So you can have an organized ride of 500 bikes, and as long as they're obeying the laws, it wouldn't be a procession requiring a permit. The interesting thing is that getting the permit seems to exempt you from the law- maybe through street closures and the like, as done for parades and bike races.


Well the bad part is that any charity holding a century can say that all riders are following the law, and if someone runs a stop sign, the organizer can be held responsible since they didn't get a permit. As it currently is, the rider that runs the stop sign is responsible and can/should get the ticket.

The bad part about this is that if the Sherriff feels like they need to close the road, they will require it as part of the permit, and the organizers have to pay the fees (Sherriff overtime fees hahaha  ) for closures, and just about everything thinkable up front. Also, they can deny or set the fees for any reason, and the appeal process is unreasonable. I think the appeal process being unfair is the angle that a lot of opposition will be working on.

This is bad, but it has big opposition from all the main bike advocate groups and hopefully the county supervisors will recieve lots of influence prior to their session (which happens to come before the next county bicycle advisory committee meeting).


----------



## robwh9 (Sep 2, 2004)

I recall that the Woodside city council wanted to limit organized rides through town, but their city attorney said they couldn't, so they didn't.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*easy*



singlespeed.org said:


> Received an email on this, and thought it would be of interest here:
> 
> _The Santa Clara County Roads Departments has proposed an ordinance that would require an encroachment permit for “special events”, and declares “An organized procession of 50 or more bicycles shall be considered a Special Event unless the procession will be conducted in accordance with all requirements of the California Vehicle Code Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4.”_
> http://bikesiliconvalley.org/sccpermit
> ...


This is easy. Simply state on any announcement or entry that "all riders must comply with all requirements of the California Vehicle Code Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 4."

Road races likely would not comply. Time trials likely would, as well as centuries. Would have to be careful not to ride 2 abreast in most places, and stop at stop signs, etc.

Interestingly, and I looked it up, "following too closely" under California law applies only to "motor vehicles." So, drafting is ok.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*laws of interest*

A few laws of interest:

Calif. Vehicle Code:

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the
rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver
of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to,
provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic
beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section
20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000),
Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18
(commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by
their very nature can have no application.

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
condition of, the roadway.

21705. Motor vehicles being driven outside of a business or
residence district in a caravan or motorcade, whether or not towing
other vehicles, shall be so operated as to allow sufficient space and
in no event less than 100 feet between each vehicle or combination
of vehicles so as to enable any other vehicle to overtake or pass.

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.

And more: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21200-21212


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

grrrah said:


> Well the bad part is that any charity holding a century can say that all riders are following the law, and if someone runs a stop sign, the organizer can be held responsible since they didn't get a permit. As it currently is, the rider that runs the stop sign is responsible and can/should get the ticket.


So it does get a bit sticky. The organizer could say that since the rules of the ride were that the laws must be obeyed the rider breaking them wasn't a legitimate part of the ride. Things like that should be clarified before the law is enacted.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

California L33 said:


> So it does get a bit sticky. .......... Things like that should be clarified before the law is enacted.


It seems that interpreting laws regarding bicycles is already a problem in many (if not most) places. Any additional law or ordinance just adds to the problem.

I'd try to stop it or worst case, get the thing written so interpretation isn't required.


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

California L33 said:


> So it does get a bit sticky. The organizer could say that since the rules of the ride were that the laws must be obeyed the rider breaking them wasn't a legitimate part of the ride. Things like that should be clarified before the law is enacted.


Lots of stickyness and things needing clarification.

The worst part is that the County could deny any permit for any reason, or require any fee it thinks is predictable, UP FRONT, which would pretty much handicap any charitable efforts. And if a group wanted to appeal the amount of the fee, they would have to pay that fee first.


----------



## singlespeed.org (Feb 14, 2006)

Here is a comment by Bob Mack, of Cycle California Magazine:
_This ordinance would apply any event using a county road in Santa Clara 
County. Specifically and bike ride with 50 or more people, or if the 
director of county roads thinks that even one participant will violate 
any part of the California vehicle code (as interpreted by the him or her.

This can kill most century and fun rides, charity rides, large bike club 
weekly rides, and race team training rides._


----------



## *Dude* (Feb 26, 2004)

*Here are some contacts*

* Please add your name AND address to the email. Adding your address assures the Supervisors that you are a constituent.
* Please send one email to each of the following Supervisor email accounts...

Don Gage: [email protected] co.santa- clara.ca. us

Blanca Alvarado: [email protected] bos.co.santa- clara.ca. us

Pete McHugh: [email protected] bos.co.scl. ca.us

Ken Yeager: [email protected] sccgov.org

Liz Kniss: [email protected] co.santa- clara.ca. us


*Dude*


----------



## grrrah (Jul 22, 2005)

looks like the county removed it from tomorrows agenda, at least until after their own bicycle advisory committee has a chance to meet and give their input. The influx of emails probably had a lot to do with it.


----------



## djconnel (May 7, 2006)

Anyone know the status on this law? Looks pretty fishy to me... too close to the Woodside law which the city attorney advised was illegal. 

In particular part (1) of the following definition.... "assembly of 50 or more which travels in unison". Sounds like traffic leaving Stanford Stadium, 49ers game, not to mention almost any large club or informal group ride.

code:
_*Special Event* means:
(1) A parade, march, procession, demonstration, or assembly consisting of 50 or more persons, animals, motorized or non-motorized vehicles (including, but not limited to, cars, motorcycles, and bicycles), which is to assemble on a road or travel in unison on a road; or
(2) Any activity or event on the road which requires temporary closure of a road or portion thereof, or does not comply with normal or usual traffic regulations or controls; or
(3) Any activity or event on the road which requires the placement of a tent, canopy, or other temporary structure, including, but not limited to, medical stations, rest-stops, and portable toilets, on the road._


----------



## djconnel (May 7, 2006)

I should have read more carefully... it goes on to say if there are 50 to 500 people and no traffic laws are being violated then no permit is required.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

djconnel said:


> I should have read more carefully....


And noticed that this thread was almost three years old.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

MerlinAma said:


> And noticed that this thread was almost three years old.


Is Santa Clara still a county?


----------



## djconnel (May 7, 2006)

Err.... I was asking for an update on this story. Responding to this thread was exactly the correct way to do this.

Harumph.


----------

