Does section 596.5 of the California Vehicle Code prohibit a person from riding a tandem tandem bicycle?

Plaintiffs' counsel contends that this was the only law in support of the juror's information that it was a violation of the law to ride tandem on one bicycle and that the section itself does not prohibit such an act. In La Fleur v. Hernandez, 84 Cal.App.2d 569, 574, 191 P.2d 95, it was questioned whether that section was applicable where the passenger was riding on the handlebars of a bicycle. It concluded, however, that the error, if any, was not prejudicial.

Page 935

Section 31 of the Vehicle Code defines a vehicle as a 'device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved by human power * * *.' That section especially eliminates a bicycle in the definition of a vehicle. Section 32 defines a motor vehicle and likewise excludes a self-propelled bicycle. The only section of the Vehicle Code which could possibly include it is section 452, which provides that every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving an animal upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, but this division (9) excepts those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. Section 596.5 is included within division 9 (traffic laws). It therefore appears that it might possibly apply to riding a bicycle upon a highway but it would be difficult to hold that it applied to a horse being ridden bareback and double. Apparently, in James v. Myers, 68 Cal.App.2d 23, 156 P.2d 69, a similar question arose where a motorcycle operator and his companion were riding on the single seat of the vehicle intended and designed for the exclusive use of the operator. The court held it was a violation of section 596.5 of the Vehicle Code. If it could be applied to a motorcycle under section 452, the trial court was justified in submitting the question of its application to a bicycle to the jury. No prejudicial error resulted in this respect.