#1 - After just 15 miles on I-5 an officer, believing ALL freeway shoulders are closed to bikes, challenged my presence. A call to the local CHP facility straightened matters out and I got a nice apology and a wish for a pleasant journey. I think if law enforcement officers would see informational signing then this sort of unnecessary action would stop.
#2 - Next, about 65 miles further along, south of the Bakersfield turnoff, officers stopped me again. These officers understood that it was legal to ride on the shoulders but the cellular "phone force" - people driving along the freeway - had called, and the officers were directed to talk to me, maybe counsel me. After I agreed that there could be a danger from drunks, and they agreed to (continue to) do their best to get drunks off the road, we went our separate ways. I think officers MUST respond to motorists calls but there would be a lot less calls if signs informed people that bicycling on this freeway shoulder is legal.
#3 - The next day, just 20 miles further south, there was a repeat of this stop. The "phone force" reported "unsafe riding". I assured this officer that I was not suicidal, but just trying to get to Beaumont. We had a cordial conversation and went on about our business. I think most people believe that bikes on freeway shoulders are illegal. When they call and are told its NOT illegal, then some embellish the story and report dangerous conduct. Proper signs would stop most of the calls.
#4 - The last stop was about a half mile before my planned exit onto SR 138. This officer understood that some shoulders were open to bikes but his sergeant told him that this one was not. I said I-5 was open all the way to Magic Mountain but he would hear none of it. How about rolling down to the 138 exit? No I must crawl through the barbed wire fence to gain the frontage road; I could reach 138 that way! I did it! He held the wire for me and handed over the bike and I continued my descent. I was surprised to see his car turning around on the frontage road a couple of minutes later; he said "Hey Bill (my name's on the bike), take a left and then another left ... I think you might be right, I'll check it out." The frontage road bypassed 138 and his instructions took me northbound on I-5 until I could turn and ride the wrong way down the ramp onto 138! I think this officer was truly surprised when he noticed the freeway entrance was signed to prohibit pedestrians and not bicycles. I suspect that if there was informational signing along I-5 in the Fort Tejon area, then I would not have this story to tell.
I don't mind talking with folks who work hard to keep drunks and other incompetent drivers off the road. Every one of these officers was polite and courteous, but it would be nice to go more than 35 miles without repeating the experience! Signs would help.
Caltrans bureaucrats rejected the idea, partially because the only approved sign is a "warning" sign (black bicycle symbol on a yellow diamond). They said actual bicyclists on the shoulder are just as effective as any sign in informing that there are bicyclists on the shoulder. Further, they fear that if signs were placed some places, liability considerations might somehow force them to sign EVERY open freeway shoulder.
The California Bicycle Advisory Committee HAS helped redefine use of the "Bike Warning" sign. Now it can be used when there is no bicycle "facility" and it can be used along freeway shoulders. Such use is left up to the opinion of the engineer maintaining the road. It is necessary to find that person and convince him or her that the money should be spent.
BTW, the idea of a "Bikes on Freeway Shoulder" was raised again at the October CBAC meeting. It was soundly defeated.
-Bill