FYI: Under the California Vehicle code, bicycles are considered to be "vehicles," and are required to ride on the street. (OPD hasn't enforced this law, except for rare occasions, where there may be a special event.) The homeless man, however, can be cited for "obstructing a pedestrian right-of-way."

Mostly correct Tom, but also note that in California individual cities are allowed to define the legality of bicycling on the sidewalk. In Oakland it is banned for everyone riding an adult-sized bike (wheels of 20 inches or greater in diameter or a frame of 14 inches or greater in length). All of the laws for individual cities around the Bay Area, as well as recommendations regardless of the local laws, can be found at www.BikeEastBay.org/SidewalkCycling

The homeless man should also be cited for the sit, lie law and illegal camping. Oakland needs to start enforcing the law on the homeless also. Not enforcing the law with them is only encouraging them to think they are entitled. It has to stop

Muni-Code Violations 9.08.160 Sitting or lying on streets or sidewalks, 9.08.170 Obstructing Pedestrians. Once again the city needs to find a space where those people who not want housing can camp with toilets, water to wash in, trash cans ect. They are going to drink, smoke and do drugs at least condense it. They can throw in some portable offices for social worker also.

Not supposed to be riding a bicycle on the sidewalk.

The point is none of this is suppose to be on a sidewalk. Bicycles, the homeless, tents, blocking sidewalks, illegal dumping. Like David said find the homeless a space

I agree with David. I been a long advocate to have a big lot with running water, trash bins, and open toilets for those who don't want housing. This will greatly reduce the filth, trash, and public sanitation and nuisance. Moreover, it will contain the homeless encampments to an area rather than them been scatter all over the City. I do believe the reason the City doesn't do this is because of the liability. The question is, would the City be liable if someone gets hurt or dies on this lot? The Civil Rights Lawyers would probably have a field day.

Oakland can look up the encampments they have in Seattle, they sound reasonable

Where are the civil right attorneys when a tax paying citizens is assaulted by one of the street people??? As long as there is a double standard between the the people who work and pay tax's and the new entitled who have never worked and expect everything we the the tax payer are screwed. The taxpayer have to play by rules or lose everything. The street people have nothing to lose and everything to gain all without doing anything and all at our expense.

Well said David

To elaborate of the double standard of our legal system; if you get an auto accident and hit someone who has no insurance and no driver's license, they can and will sue you. However, if they hit you, you can get nothing to compensate for your lost. That is why we pay double insurance. It is called "uninsured motorist" insurance. Our legal system believes that having no insurance or no driver's license is irrelevant to the culpability of the accident. My belief is that, that person has no business driving and if he wasn't there, there would be no accident. Having no insurance and/or driver's license should preclude him from the right to sue.

This was completed