PCH: Particularly Contentious Highway
September 6th, 2010 
12 Comments
The city of Malibu is having a PR problem with cyclists. A facebook page, “Share the Road, Share the Tickets”, created by one of Malibu’s Public Safety Commissioners, Susan Tellem, resulted in a backlash from cyclists throughout Los Angeles County who felt they were being unfairly targeted. After all, none of the 96 collisions and 4 tragic fatalities that occurred in the first 5 months of this year on Pacific Coast Highway – a popular bike route that runs through Malibu - were caused by cyclists. Does Malibu hate cyclists? Do they really think cyclists are causing the problems along PCH? On September 1st a group of cyclists went to the Public Safety Commission meeting to find out.
The meeting did not start well. News came in that a proposed bike lane along a stretch of PCH had been rejected for being “discontinuous”. An update on the $900K grant from Caltrans to improve the bicycle route between Trancas Canyon Road and the Ventura County line was met with the illogical concern that the improvements would result in more cyclists using the road. Well, yes, hopefully. There’s not much point in having a bike route if no-one’s going to use it.
Later in the meeting, the attending cyclists quickly laid to rest the issue of whether those that run red lights should be ticketed – overwhelmingly, the answer was yes. However, the deeper issue of whether cyclists should be targeted by law enforcement was addressed with results from an examination by the Malibu Times of the approximately 2000 collisions that occurred on PCH between 2004 and 2005 It found that nearly all involved some combination of alcohol consumption, driving at night, making an illegal u-turn, brakes failing, falling asleep at the wheel, or speeding. There was no mention of cyclists. The recurring theme to many of the cyclists’ comments was education for all road users, road improvement, and specific training for the Sheriff’s Department (Malibu does not have its own police force) on how to deal with cyclists.
As public comment ended and the commission members began to speak it became apparent just how far Malibu has to go in order to address the needs of cyclists.
PCH is a class III bike route but the high speed of motor vehicles and lack of space make it a dangerous place to ride.
Members of the commission (a commission tasked with making recommendations to the City Council on, amongst other things, traffic safety) appeared ill-informed of cyclists’ rights. Multiple members of the commission were unaware of a cyclist’s right to take the lane in the event of sub-standard lane width, did not know that riding on the shoulder was voluntary, and that a cyclist cannot be ticketed for riding in the travel lane. It was, honestly, an immensely frustrating exchange of common misconceptions from several commission members and cyclists’ rights to the roadway from the attending riders. The representative from the Sheriff’s Department was misleading at best, stating that cyclists must ride as far to the right as possible. Nope, the law says “practicable”. It’s possible for me to ride over broken glass but it’s really not practicable.
Furthermore, calls for speed limit reductions and work to clear up landslides that have crept into the shoulder where most cyclists ride (though not because they are obligated to) were met with the refrain “our hands are tied” since Caltrans, a state-level department, is responsible for engineering and setting speed limits, not the city. However, the PSC has worked with Caltrans before. Just a few months ago Commissioner Chris Frost rode along with a Caltrans engineer to identify trouble spots along PCH, aided with information from the grass-roots organization “A Safer PCH”. As a result of that collaborative effort crosswalks will be made more visible, and signs reminding drivers of speed limits will be added. So it can be done. It’s time to take collaborating with Caltrans on PCH safety issues out of the “too hard” bin again.
Again and again, the cyclists attempted to inform the commission of their rights, as well as offering up valid solutions to the numerous problems that plague PCH. However, at least during the meeting, it seemed that the commission was focusing on how to enforce the law for cyclists, rather than how to improve the road conditions. Making PCH safe for cyclists is no small task. Sharing the road is difficult when cars move at speeds upwards of 50 mph and the road width is naturally limited by the ocean on one side and cliffs on the other. But there are many measures that can and must be taken to protect vulnerable road users who have as much right to PCH as motorists.
I will say this for the meeting: it opened lines of communication between Public Safety Commissioners and cyclists who may not have met otherwise. So I’d like to thank Commissioner Chris Frost for inviting us out there. We’ve got a long way to go but opening a dialogue between the concerned public and city officials was a start.
Author Info
Hey Rach,
Thanks for this thorough write-up. I can’t begin to imagine how frustrating it must’ve been. But you ended your entry on an encouraging note, which gives me hope!
Sirinya
If more cyclists used PHC there were would be more space on the road for cars and less traffic. It’s just a no-brainer to put large bike paths, brightly painted and clearly marked, on both sides of PCH and reduce the speed limit to 35 mph.
There is no reason to travel faster than that to get to where you need to go, unless you’re an ambulance.
High speed limits do NOT move traffic faster, on the contrary, they actually cause congestion and the few minuets you save in time IF you’re lucky is not worth the the fatalities.
Nohocyclechic.blogspot.com
Disclaimer, I was at this meeting.
Good overview of the meeting, and while the amount of education we need to do with the Commission (and I’m guessing residents of Malibu as well) is daunting and somewhat depressing, the good thing is that I believe there are people on the commission who are actually interested in understanding the problem (although I also felt there were others who just wanted it to go away–ie, get rid of the cyclists in general–although no one said that outright).
I think perhaps a larger issue here, beyond Malibu, is the discontinuous application of law by LA Sheriff’s department and the LAPD. Of course we need pressure put on CalTrans to implement engineering and signage solutions, but the Sheriff’s department would really benefit from undergoing the training the LAPD is implementing right now in regards to cyclists. The sheriff’s deputy who was at the meeting was definitely unclear on the law as it applies to cyclists (he couldn’t even provide an answer to a question about impeding traffic). This is not to disparage him, as it’s not uncommon for law enforcement to be unfamiliar with CVC laws related to cycling, since they don’t deal with those laws on a day to day basis. But with more people taking to cycling, and more cyclists using PCH specifically, the LASD needs to educate themselves on those laws and how they are interpreted by most law enforcement agencies (so there is continuity between departments).
I look forward to the next meeting (if cycling happens to be on the agenda) and seeing what steps the commission and the community can take together to improving the conditions on PCH for all.
I’ve been on PCH a total of 4 miles in the last 7 years. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like it’s more hazardous than some of the major streets within the city. And judging by Malibunians’ (yes, that’s an official word, starting right now) lack of knowledge and compassion, we’ve got an uphill battle.
How is it still acceptable that law enforcement officers don’t know the vehicle code pertaining to bikes?
So basically nothing has changed when it comes to the attitude of Ms. Tellem and the other safety commissioners. It’s still “share the road, share the ticket”. They are still focused on enforcement based on complete misinterpretations of the law as it applies to cyclist. And what a surprise that one of the people who spoke in favor of self policing was also Ms. Tellem’s husband.
By all means anyone who runs a red light should be ticketed, bicycles or cars. But until the commissioners actual understand the traffic laws as they apply to bicycles it just going to be more of the same.
Eric, I really did get the impression that Ms. Tellem was interested in understanding traffic laws as they relate to cyclists. The problem is the source of her information, which is a misinformed Sheriff’s Deputy. Also, the commission doesn’t enforce traffic laws, the LASD does, so this all goes back to needing the LASD to undergo the training that LAPD has undergone.
I think we’re all still upset about the Share the Road-Share the Tickets Facebook campaign and the language it used and how it demonized cyclists, but, Ms. Tellem seemed to be a very reasonable person and interested in really understanding the issues. Regarding her husband, I don’t actually recall him focusing on enforcement. He actually presented a potential signage idea to post at intersections that said “Thank you for stopping” and was aimed at cyclists at T intersections where home owners need the red light to stop traffic so they can back out of their driveways.
Next to the Sheriff’s Deputy not being educated about traffic laws regarding cyclists, the biggest disappointment is that when commissioners had questions or raised rather ridiculous points (like why should you have to slow down when approaching slower traffic–um, so you don’t run them over? Hello?), when they asked questions or totally missed the point, the one “avid cyclist” on the commission kept his mouth shut and said nothing. The way these meetings are held, the cyclists in the audience had to request to be a part of the conversation because it’s not part of protocol, but the cycling commissioner Chris Frost doesn’t have to ask permission. He can answer a fellow commissioner’s question or refute misinformation regarding how cyclists should use the road (not illegal to ride double file, etc.) but he didn’t. I thought it was quite amazing that he barely said anything when other commissioners were suggesting giving tickets to cyclists for impeding traffic just because a motorist would need to safely pass them.
One commissioner was totally lost on the idea of giving 3 feet to pass. She actually said “but some lanes aren’t wide enough to give 3 feet between the cyclist and the car” (which is why you would change lanes to pass as we all know) and Frost said nothing to explain this idea to her either.
The whole thing was very disappointing.
@Amanda – that’s a post. Write it up on your blog as a follow up to Rachel’s post. No sense letting good commentary languish unseen in the comments.
In other words – keep the fire stoked!
Alex, I’m guessing I’ll get just as much fire stoking on the comments here as on my little blog, probably more. Rach’s write up is excellent. I’ll stick to commenting rather than putting out a sub par analysis.
Thanks for your write up.
A friend said I should send this to you…
I was riding back from Malibu today, when I realized why this whole PCH/safety commission meeting has impassioned me so.
In the meeting (as well as on the road while riding) Malibu sheriffs have said the PCH shoulder is a bike lane but on Thursdays all the Malibu residence use our supposed bike lane as a trash can depot – The residents line their trashcans all the way up to the white line!
As I ride home most days, I get pretty badly treated and its hard to be an “ambassador” when you get things like cones in front of lifeguard stations blocking off the shoulder (shouldn’t lifeguards be informed that they need to leave space for a bike to pass or they are jeopardizing our lives while they sit on the pedestals looking out at empty water?); cars riding into the shoulder; motorcycle cops right in the shoulder; cars double parked; and what do the Malibu sheriffs say? If you go into the traffic lane, I will write you a $400+ ticket. Is that even possible? Cyclists don’t cause any of the hundreds of yearly crashes on the PCH. It seems to me the most arrogant kind of localism and bigotry which in this day and age should be addressed and ousted.
As Malibu residents and sheriffs try and enforce their black and white view of the law, i.e. running red lights is wrong, maybe their outcome will be a crash course in the laws of bicycle safety and bicycle rights. And soon maybe we’ll see signs on the PCH stating “Bicyclists allowed use of full lane as they do in Nor Cal. That should be a start at least!
Aron
Thanks for the informative write up. As someone who has riden the PCH from the top of Oregon to the Mexican Border I’ve seen the best and the worst the PCH has to offer. The PCH is a route that cyclist flock to from the world over. While I live here in California I was amazaed at how many traveled from Europe and Canada just to ride this trail. While it may be dangerous and not the most ideal place to ride it still is beautiful, has plenty of campgrounds, and a great place to ride. I love riding through LA, Huntington, and even Malibu. I had a number of tourists stop me in Malibu asking how to get to Zuma Beach, had to pull out my map and show them. Keep up the good work for all of us cycists!
Devin Holmes
OK, guys, I need your help. I am a Malibu resident who has been urging safety improvements — large and small — along PCH to accomodate pedestrians and bicyclists, reduce speeds, and re-engineer a highway that was designed to a 65 mph rural highway standard in 1947 and never substantially improved.
There are now 2 major developments that the L.A. bicyclists need to know about. First, the city is starting a $1.1 million bike route improvement project — at the wrong (west) end of the city. It’s a start, but the idea from some Malibu officials is that this bike route out past Trancas will solve the bike safety problem at the east end of Malibu,by enticing bicyclists to drive out to Zuma Beach to go bike riding.
We bicyclists need to make sure this project is designed well.
More importantly, after years of begging by a few loudmouths like me, the city has just been awarded a $300,000 SCAG grant for a comprehensive traffic safety study and plan for PCH.
The city os going to do outreach to stakeholders. I will keep you posted on this project, I really need some constructive help here. I’ve been a voice in the forest for years out here, and the people who are used to using state highway right of way as their exclusive property (for parking, walls, landscaping, and other encroachments) are going to fight us like crazy.
I strongly believe that a reasonable change in parking, lane striping, and other practices can make PCH safer for people living along the road, bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists. There has to be a recognition that people living along PCH have valid concerns about losing parking or turn lanes.