I have been issued a citation for a violation of the UC Berkeley campus restriction on bicycle travel (CVC 21113, docket #7920561). I intend to challenge the citation on the grounds that the restriction as it exists is illegal and unenforceabl e. It is my opinion that this restriction as it exists is arbitrary and capricious both in intent and in implementation, and is therefore a violation of my right to equal protection under the law. It is also my opinion that the restriction as it exists does not reasonably relate to the protection of the public safety, and it is therefore also a violation of my right to travel on the public highways.
I
UC Berkeley's roads and pathways are public highways
First let me establish that the pathways and roadways on the UC Berkeley campus are public highways. Cor pus Juris Secundum states: "The term 'public highway', in its broadest sense, includes public ways of every description which the public has a right to use for travel, either conditionally or unconditionally." (CJS 39A 669). Bouvier's Law Dictionary, quoted in City of Long Beach v. Payne (1935) 3 Cal. 2d 184, has the following definition: "The term highway is the generic term for all kinds of public ways, whether it be carriage-ways, bridle-ways, foot-ways, bridges, turnpike roads, railroads, can als, ferries or navigable rivers." Thus, the term "public highway" clearly applies to the pathways on the UC Berkeley campus, and all rights and privileges afforded the public by the location of a highway, also apply.
II
The location of a highway grants an easement for travel by any reasonable means.
These rights include the right to use the highway for travel. "The easement in the general public, acquired by the location of a highway, extends to the limits of the highway as located, and consists in the privilege of passage, by obvious methods of transportation and passage, together with the powers and privileges which are incident to such a right." (CJS 39A 863, emphasis added). In Escobedo v. State of California (1950) 35 Cal.2d 870, 876 (overruled on other grounds, Rios v. Cozens (1972) 7 Cal.3d 792, 799), the court held that "The use of highways for purposes of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right, of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived...[A]ll persons have an equal right to use them for purposes of travel by proper means, and with due regard for the corresponding rights of others."
III
The police power vested in the state and delegated to UC must be applied in a reasonable and constitutional manner.
The state has a broad police power to regulate traffic on highways for the purpose of protecting the public safety. It has the right to delegate this power to local authorities (CVC 21), and it has done so in the area of bike regulation on public school g rounds in general, and University of California grounds in specific (CVC 21113). The portion of CVC 21113 which applies to this case is CVC 21113(f): "A public agency , including, but not limited to, the Regents of the University of California and the Trustees of the California State University, may adopt rules or regulations to restrict, or specify the conditions for, the use of bicycles, motorized bicycles, skateboards, and roller skates on public property under the jurisdiction of that agency." However, 37 Cal Jur 3d 164 notes: "Where the state's power to regulate the use of streets is relinquished in favor of municipalities, the latter may enact regulating ordinances. But the regulations must not conflict with the general law, must be reasonable, and must not abridge constitutional rights." (emphasis added). Also, "Municipal ordinances must be limited to the protection of the public in the use of the streets, and must bear a reasonable relationship to that purpose." (Cal Jur 3d 162, emphasis added). It is my opinion that the restriction as it exists abridges the constitutional right to equal protection under the law, as well as the right to travel, and does not bear a reasonable relationship to the protection of the public in the use of the streets.
IV
The ordinance was established in an arbitrary manner
I now turn to the specifics of this ordinance. The ban on bicycle travel was established in an arbitrary manner. Ray Shiflett, Senior Educational Facility Planner, Space Management & Capital Programs, explained the reasoning behind the ban in correspondence: "The process leading to the restriction was the campus was sued by a cyclist who injured herself owing to the poor condition of the roads. The Vice Chancellor for Business and Admin Services, the Chief of Police and the Director of Transportation Services made the decision and responsibility was with the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor BAS and Director TS who were instrumental in the decision have left the campus....I don't think you'll find minutes describing actions taken because they didn't go through committee." There was, as far as can be ascertained, no attempt to examine other potential solutions, and no real indication that the public safety was being served--consider that bicyclists are now forced to use Hearst, Bancroft or Durant to move east to west, or vice versa, on campus; surely these roads are at least as dangerous as campus pathways. Although there are many Berkeley bicycle organizations (including several campus-based ones and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition), none were consulted for advice before the ban was enacted. Because of the above, I am of the opinion that the UC acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when planning to enact this ordinance.
V
The ordinance is arbitrary in its implementation
There are two currently-published pamphlets on the subject of bicycling on campus: "UC Berkeley Bicycle Book; A handbook for riding on campus", and "Bicycle Routes, Parking, and Information." Both are published by the UCPD, yet they contradict each other on the matter of bike-legal pathways, and neither pamphlet agrees with the actual signage and pavement marking on campus. For example, UCBBB shows only vehicular roads as bike-legal, while BRPI shows vehicular roads and some pathways (differences include, but are not limited to, the road to the south of VLSB, the promenade in front of Harmon Gym nasium, and the path to the west of Haviland). Actual pavement markings contradict both maps in many places, including, but not limited to, Jean McFarlane Lane (near Mulford), and the pathway east of Haviland. And finally, the only written ordinance mentioned in any of the bicycle materials (indeed, the only ordinance I've managed to locate), reads: ".007) Riding in a Prohibited Area - Bicycles may not be ridden in any campus areas which are marked 'for pedestrian use only' between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM, Monday through Friday, holidays excepted.... [remainder of ordinance not relevant]." This text would seem to apply only to Sproul Plaza, the pathway west of Dwinelle, and perhaps one or two other areas on campus. Because of the extremely confusing and arbitrary nature of this regulation as it exists, it is not reasonable to expect cyclists to obey it.
VI
It is not reasonable to restrict bicycle access to campus roads legally usable by automobiles.
The restriction is arbitrary in one other important manner; there are a number of roads on campus where it is legal to drive a car, but not legal to ride a bicycle--these include, but are not limited to, the road between Doe Library and South Hall, the road to the west of LeConte, and Jean McFarlane Lane near Mulford. A bicycle is clearly less of a threat to public safety in pedestrian areas than an automobile; therefore the restriction as it exists is not only unreasonable but egregiously so.
VII
The ordinance is an unreasonable restriction on the bicyclists' right to travel.
To get from my office in LSA up to Campbell Hall, where our staff meetings are held (and please note that this applies to all traffic between the east and west sides of campus) , I must either ride south all the way to Durant (crossing Bancroft at a dangerous, uncontrolled intersection), climb all the way up to Piedmont on Durant, then take Piedmont (which has poor pavement) north to University Drive, or, ride north to Hearst, then climb Hearst (which is very steep and has extremely bad pavement) to Piedmont and again take Piedmont to University. Either way nearly triples the distance I must ride and requires significantly more effort due to extra hilliness. In addition, I contend that, rather than protecting the public safety, this restriction actually increases danger by forcing cyclists to use unsafe roads with heavy traffic.
In conclusion, I feel that the restrictions on bike riding at UC Berkeley are an arbitrary infringement on cyclists' right to travel and right to equal protection under the law. I request that the UC discard its current policy and work with the Campus Bicycle Committee on a set of bicycle rules which will provide safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other campus road users without unduly infringing upon the rights of any. I also request that my citation be declared invalid due to the arbitrary nature of this ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Tom Holub
College of Letters and Sciences Dean's Office
201 Campbell Hall
UC Berkeley, CA 94720