Most of us are simply glad that Alameda will have a more effective process for enforcing parking-in-bike-lane violations later this fall, assuming Council approves the second reading of the proposed ordinance at its next meeting. We don’t particularly care which statute is used. This post is for those of us who do care about the details.
Specifically, why does Alameda feel the need to create its own municipal code prohibiting parking in painted bike lanes when many other California cities are perfectly happy citing California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21211, which has been on the books for about 25 years?
The answer lies in an awkwardly drafted sentence—one whose meaning turns on the placement of a single modifying phrase, and perhaps one errant comma.
First, Some Background
Many California cities cite CVC 21211(b) when issuing tickets for vehicles parked in Class II (painted) bike lanes, like those on Santa Clara Avenue, Park Street, and Webster Street in Alameda. Here’s a screenshot from Oakland’s citation portal, for example, showing CVC 21211(b) being used for parking-in-bike-lane violations on streets with Class II (painted) bike lanes:
Oakland is far from alone. Around the state, cities routinely interpret CVC 21211(b) as applying to all classes of bikeways.
That interpretation also makes practical sense. Parking in a Class II bike lane presents an immediate hazard by forcing people on bicycles into traffic. By contrast, a vehicle parked on a Class I shared-use path is relatively uncommon. If the statute were intended to address only Class I facilities, it would largely miss the problem it was designed to solve.
Citations issued throughout California for blocking Class II bike lanes under CVC 21211(b) have routinely been upheld in court when challenged.
Recent legislation should make this interpretation even more obvious. Consider Assembly Bill 361, passed in 2023, which now allows California jurisdictions to implement automated camera enforcement of bike lane parking blockages. Via the City of Alameda’s interpretation that bike lane parking blockages are not already prohibited by state law, this bill would not make sense. However, other cities like Sacramento are successfully rolling out camera-based bike lane ticketing systems using this allowance with no issues.
The Ambiguous Wording of CVC 21211(b)
So if the intent of the statute is to apply to all classes of bike lanes, what’s the problem — why is Alameda choosing not to use it?
The problem is that the statute’s wording is legitimately ambiguous. Read literally, it’s not hard to understand why someone could conclude that it applies only to Class I bike paths.
Here’s the text of CVC 21211(b):
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.
The key phrase is:
“…upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a)…”
Subdivision (a) reads:
No person may stop, stand, sit, or loiter upon any class I bikeway, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public or private bicycle path or trail, if the stopping, standing, sitting, or loitering impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist.
Meanwhile, Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code defines all four classes of bikeways, with subdivision (a) of that section specifically defining Class I bikeways.
If you read CVC 21211(b) literally, the phrase “as specified in subdivision (a)” appears to modify both “any bikeway” and “bicycle path or trail.”
Under that reading, subdivision (b) only applies to the Class I bikeways and bicycle paths described in subdivision (a). That would exclude Class II bike lanes, Class III bike routes, and Class IV separated bikeways.
But that interpretation creates another problem.
Why mention “any bikeway” at all?
The Legislature could simply have written:
“…upon any bicycle path or trail as specified in subdivision (a)…”
Instead, it deliberately added the broader term “any bikeway.”
That matters because “bikeway” has a specific legal definition. Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code defines a bikeway as the umbrella term encompassing every type of bicycle facility: Class I shared-use paths, Class II painted bike lanes, Class III bike routes, and Class IV separated bikeways.
The inclusion of the word “bikeway” therefore only makes sense if subdivision (b) was intended to apply to all four classes of bicycle facilities.
The apparent drafting mistake is that the modifying phrase “as specified in subdivision (a)” was placed after “bicycle path or trail,” making it appear to refer to everything that came before it.
Had the sentence instead been written like this, with the comma (in red) placed earlier:
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…
…the intended meaning would have been much clearer. In this version, “as specified in subdivision (a)” naturally refers only to “bicycle path or trail,” while “any bikeway” stands on its own.
In other words, the Legislature appears to have intended CVC 21211(b) to prohibit blocking any bikeway, but drafted the sentence in a way that allows a narrower reading.
The Best Fix: Clarify the State Law
This ambiguity is why Alameda is choosing to create its own code. Rather than rely on a statute that can reasonably be read two different ways—even if courts and legislative staff have consistently interpreted it broadly—the city is adopting its own ordinance that unambiguously prohibits parking in bike lanes.
Having our own code is an improvement over Alameda’s earlier practice of using other violations if and when applicable. (Other citations are often available, since parking in bike lanes often also means double parking, parking too far from the curb, etc.) Having a specific parking-in-bike-lane code will expand coverage to where other codes aren’t available and enable better data analysis. But ideally, the state Legislature will fix the text of CVC 21211 so cities don’t have to resort to local ordinances to accomplish what the state law was apparently intended to do all along.