From Alan Wachtel, CABO Government Relations Director
Dear Governor Newsom:
I was a member of the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, which advised Caltrans on bicycle issues, for 27 years and its chair for 15 years. I’m also the government relations director of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations, one of California’s two statewide bicycle advocacy groups. Based on my years of knowledge and experience as a bicyclist, advocate, and expert witness, I must respectfully ask you to veto AB 825 (Bryan) (bicycling on sidewalks).

While my organization and I appreciate the author’s intent to improve bicycle safety, this bill would instead have exactly the opposite effect. It would encourage dangerous bicycling habits, and it would constitute a huge step backward in the goal of routinely accommodating bicycle travel everywhere in the transportation network. Unfortunately, the author’s office has repeatedly declined to meet with us even to discuss these issues.
Under existing Vehicle Code §21650(g) (which I helped to draft), bicyclists may already ride on sidewalks everywhere, unless prohibited by the code or local ordinance. AB 825 would eliminate that local power unless the adjacent roadway includes a designated bicycle facility, except for last-minute amendments that provide complicated exceptions meant to protect pedestrians (but that are inadequate to do so).
But AB 825, despite being promoted as a bicycle safety bill, would, on the contrary, also be more dangerous for bicyclists. It relies on and actively perpetuates the misconception that the only safe places for bicycles are designated facilities and sidewalks.
Though it may sound surprising, sidewalks are, most of the time, actually much more dangerous for bicycles than streets. The legislative analyses cite a review of 23 studies that estimates the risk of being hit by a car on the sidewalk at 1.8 to 16 times that of the adjacent road. (I’ve published similar research myself, with comparable findings.) As the analyses explain, “According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, . . . [s]idewalks are not designed for high speed travel, and the travel speed of a bicycle can often result in a decrease in visibility for cyclists by cars, potentially placing them in danger at intersections or driveways.”
The California standard for bicycle facility design, the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, in a section on “Sidewalk as Bikeway,” states that “Bicyclists should not be encouraged . . . to ride their bicycles on facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel” (Index 3003.2), and discusses this point at some length. The corresponding national standard, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, includes a similar caution (§3.4.2), and identifies sidewalk riding as a contributing cause of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions (§3.4.3). Sidewalk bicycling also tends to promote wrong-way riding, which is an especially dangerous behavior with a high rate of collisions, because it puts bicyclists in a position where motorists do not expect or look for them at driveways and intersections.
In fact, busy streets where it might be uncomfortable to bicycle are also the ones with the highest rate of sidewalk collisions. Sidewalk bicycling on these streets should therefore not be encouraged. Yet expanding sidewalk bicycling is given as an argument in favor of AB 825.
The widespread enthusiasm for AB 825 as a bicycle safety measure, ironically, only emphasizes one reason that sidewalks are so hazardous. Uncritical confidence in imagined separation from motor vehicle traffic (which fails at driveways and intersections) only renders bicyclists more vulnerable to these unexpected conflicts.
The CHP safety study that AB 825 mandates, while welcome, will unfortunately tell us nothing about the effect of this bill on safety. That requires an analysis, street by street, of collisions in locations where bicycling on sidewalks is newly authorized, before and after the change, plus information about the number of bicyclists riding on the roadway and on the sidewalk, also before and after. That data will simply not be available.
Furthermore, while discouraging selective or discriminatory traffic stops is a laudable objective, AB 825 does not even accomplish this purpose. It merely substitutes different pretexts. The author’s goal would be better served by prohibiting these stops as a primary offense.
There is a better approach to bicycle safety. According to the Highway Design Manual (Topic 1002.1(1)), “Most bicycle travel in the State now occurs on streets and highways without bikeway designations and this may continue to be true in the future as well. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, where signing and pavement marking for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, prior to designation as a bikeway, routes may need improvements for bicycle travel.” This is where the state and cities should be concentrating their efforts, not on shunting bicycle travel onto sidewalks.
AB 825 does contain ideas that genuinely merit further consideration, such as speed limits for bicycling on sidewalks and requirements to operate at a reasonable speed that does not endanger the safety of persons or property, to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, and to yield when entering a roadway or driveway from a sidewalk. But it leaves these as local options, when they would more appropriately be enacted statewide.
Sidewalk bicycling remains and should remain lawful in most places. But cities that have decided otherwise on the basis of local conditions should retain that option. Meanwhile, we would be happy to meet with the author’s office on measures, such as those discussed above, to improve bicycling access and safety on both roads and sidewalks—if only that office were willing to meet with us. We must therefore request that you veto this measure as submitted, and encourage the au thor to work with all stakeholders to develop a revised bill.
Sincerely,
Alan Wachtel

New Laws 2023: biking on Walk signal OK, motorists to change lanes to pass, eBikes may be regulated from some bikeways.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT …

Electric Bikes on Bikeways

(a) Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other law, a motorized bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, by ordinance, that operation.21207.5.
(b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on that trail.

(c) The Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or trail within the department’s jurisdiction.

Bicyclists may proceed on Walk signal phase.

Except as otherwise directed by a bicycle control signal described in Section 21456.3, the operator of a bicycle facing a pedestrian control signal displaying a “WALK” or approved “Walking Person” symbol may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians lawfully within the intersection….(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2024.

Motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists

Section 21760 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:SEC. 6.
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Three Feet for Safety Act.21760.(b) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall pass in compliance with the requirements of this article applicable to overtaking and passing a vehicle, and shall do so at a safe distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the size and speed of the motor vehicle and the bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and the surface and width of the highway.

(c) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not overtake or pass a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator. The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking or passing a bicycle that is proceeding in the same direction and in the same lane of travel shall, if another lane of traffic proceeding in the same direction is available, make a lane change into another available lane with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law, before overtaking or passing the bicycle.

(d) If the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to comply with subdivision (c), due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.(e) (1) A violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) is an infraction punishable by a fine of thirty-five dollars ($35).(2) If a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicycle causing bodily injury to the operator of the bicycle, and the driver of the motor vehicle is found to be in violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d), a two-hundred-twenty-dollar ($220) fine shall be imposed on that driver.

John Forester, M.S., P.E.
Cycling Transportation Engineer, Consulting Engineer, Expert Witness & Educator in Effective Cycling, Bicycles, Highways & Bikeways, &Traffic Laws
1. https://www.amazon.com/Effective-Cycling-Press-John-Forester/dp/0262516942
An updated edition of a classic handbook for cyclists from beginner to expert.
Effective Cycling is an essential handbook for cyclists from beginner to expert, whether daily commuters or weekend pleasure trippers. This thoroughly updated seventh edition offers cyclists the information they need for riding a bicycle under all conditions: on congested city streets or winding mountain roads, day or night, rain or shine. It describes the sheer physical joy of cycling and provides the nuts-and-bolts details of how to choose a bicycle, maintain it, and use it in the most efficient manner. …

2. https://medium.com/@peterflax/a-sunday-conversation-with-john-forester-f997e053d0db
“If you ride a bicycle or care about the design of modern cities — or even if you love or hate bike lanes — you should care about the life’s work of John Forester. After all, probably no individual in American history has had a greater impact on how US cyclists experience riding on the road.”

3. Acknowledging John Forester — the game changer
Cycling educator John Forester gets a lot of flak from people who reject his advocacy of cycling skills, preferring a populist, facilities-based “paint and path” approach.
Forester has brought abuse upon himself with his abrasive, confrontational style. But let’s not anybody forget that Forester was a game-changer. His book Effective Cycling, first published in the 1970s, pioneered with its advice on crash avoidance maneuvering, lane positioning, preparing for turns, nighttime equipment needs — supporting this advice with a review of research literature.
Forester also has been criticized from another side, for not recommending assertive enough lane positioning. (I understand that he has revised his advice in the recent 7th edition of his book, Effective Cycling — though I haven’t read that yet.)

4. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/03/02/a-brief-history-of-how-american-transportation-engineers-resisted-bike-lanes/

5. John Forester web site – http://www.johnforester.com/
“The right of cyclists to cycle properly and safely is disappearing. If you don’t fight to preserve it, it will disappear.”

Since 1944, American society has disapproved of lawful, competent cycling. It was then that bicycles were removed from the class of vehicles and became “devices” whose riders became subject to three discriminatory laws prohibiting cyclists from exercising the full rights of drivers of vehicles. These laws prohibited cycling away from the edge of the roadway, from riding outside of bike lanes, or for using the roadway at all if a path usable by bicycles was nearby. The bikeway system was devised by motorists to provide the physical enforcement of these laws that, motorists think, make bicycling safe by keeping “their” roads clear of bicycles. The environmentalists were suckered into this bogus safety argument and now demand bikeways to make bicycle transportation safe and popular. With the government spending more and more money on bikeway programs, lawful and competent cyclists are being more and more limited to operating on bikeways that are unsuitable for lawful and competent cycling. As long as bikeways are tied to the three discriminatory laws, bikeway promotion is carrying out the motorists’ intent of discriminating against cyclists for their own convenience.
Most of the rest of this website explains the advantages of lawful, competent cycling and the engineering and safety defects inherent in doing anything else. That is all support for what must be done now, fighting for repeal of the three discriminatory anti-cyclist traffic laws. Vehicular cyclists and bikeway cyclists must join forces to reform the national policy for bicycle transportation so that it serves cyclists rather than serving the convenience of motorists.

6. From Widipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forester_(cyclist)
From early childhood, Forester had been a passionate cyclist.[3] Forester first became a cycling activist in 1971, after being ticketed in Palo Alto, California for riding his bicycle on the street instead of on a recently legislated separate bikeway for that section of the street, the sidewalk. He contested the ticket and eventually, the city ordinance was overturned. His first published article—the first of his many publications on alternatives to bikeways over the following four decades—appeared in the February 1973 issue of Bike World, a regional Northern California bimonthly magazine.
In May 1973, his focus broadened as the Food and Drug Administration (later the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC) issued extensive product safety regulations for bicycles. Originally intended only for children’s bicycles, the regulations were soon expanded to include all bicycles except for track bikes and custom-assembled bicycles. In October of that year, Forester published an article in Bike World denouncing both the California Department of Transportation and the CPSC.[9] He targeted the new CPSC regulations, especially the “eight reflector” system, which required front, rear, wheel and pedal reflectors. The front reflector is placed at the location for a bicycle headlight, which it replaces. However, motor vehicle drivers who are about to cross the path of the cyclist would not see the approaching cyclist because the headlights of their motor vehicle do not shine onto the front reflector of the bicycle, often resulting in a crash. (Only if the bicycle is directly in front of the car and only if the bicycle is headed the wrong way, will the car’s headlights illuminate the bicycle’s front reflector, until the inevitable head-on crash.)
After the rules were finalized, Forester sued the CPSC. Acting as his own lawyer (pro se), Forester did not understand that United States federal law did not grant jurisdiction to the appeals court to review the technical merit of the rules (a so-called “de novo” review) unless the procedure used to create the rules was flawed. The CPSC argued that a challenger must prove the process was “arbitrary and capricious.” The judge ordered a de novo review of the rules; threw out four of them, but left the “eight reflector” standard untouched.[10] Forester, emboldened by this partial success, proceeded to launch further challenges to administrative rules in court, but did not duplicate that early success. His legal advocacy remains highly controversial.
In addition to legal advocacy, Forester is known for his theories regarding cycling safety.[13] His Effective Cycling educational program, developed subsequent to his research claiming that integrating motorists and educated cyclists reduces accidents more than creating separate bicycle lanes, was implemented by the League of American Bicyclists (formerly, the League of American Wheelmen) until Forester withdrew his permission for that organization to use the name.[13]

Frank Lehnerz provided this about a presentation I did last night in San Diego.

Jim Baross, CSI, LCI and long-time member of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition presented some information last night at San Diego County Bicycle Coalition Council of Clubs Meeting. His topic, in particular, was to present issues and solutions between cyclists and law enforcement.
One of the items he handed out to the meeting participants was this brochure from the San Diego Police Department.

A lot of educational materials from LE organizations and other government organizations tend to leave out that bicyclists can use a full traffic lane when the lane is too narrow to share which as many of us know is the case for most traffic lanes in CA. They typically state something such as “must ride as far to the right as possible” (mistaking possible for practicable) or mention that we must ride close to the “right edge,” but no exceptions are listed. San Diego PD released an “alternative vehicles” pamphlet last year that targeted scooter riders, human-powered bicyclists, and e-bike riders and it was riddled with errors. So this is quite an improvement!

We’ve sure come a long way here on multiple fronts. Jim has trained lots of LEOs through the Smart Cycling program and we have fewer problems (bad tickets, stops, etc) than we used to riding on the roads. We still have a ways to go but if Jim’s (and others) keep up the good work full lane use will be further accepted and understood by local law enforcement.

It was also a pleasure to see a two-sided Cycling Savvy brochure and multiple participants of the group had the CVC21202 flow chart either on their phones or printed out as small business cards. Those can be seen here, along with an excellent video put together in partnership with the Orange County Bicycle Coalition. https://cyclingsavvy.org/cvc21202/
They also have an excellent video intended for law enforcement: https://cyclingsavvy.org/cycling-law/
Getting law enforcement “on our side” is very important if we want to continue getting cycling to become a more accepted and normal occurrence on our roadways.

Frank

Are you aware that the new Separated Bikeways (Class IV)(sometimes called Cycletracks and sometimes erroneously called “protected bike lanes”) are not Bike Lanes? Can you tell the difference between the two? Hint, there are no official signs or pavement markings for Cycletracks.

We care about the distinction because our use of Bike Lanes in California is required (with a few exceptions) per CVC 21208. Cycletrack use is NOT required! For whatever reason, we may choose to use the adjacent general travel lanes.
But, we are hearing that there have been instances of harassment against people bicycling next to a Cycletrack. Sad, disturbing, and illegal harassment.
Have you been harassed – by motorists or police – for choosing not to ride IN a Cycletrack?

On Friday, November 8, 2019, CABO Board Member, Scott Mace wrote on CABOforum:
Governor Brown signed AB 1193 on September 20, 2014. The state, and the badvocates who championed this legislation have had MORE THAN FIVE YEARS to come up with signage. At this point, I don’t think they intend to do so. We can see problems multiplying left and right because of this inaction. Nor has any other U.S. state taken needed action, to my knowledge.

CABO President Jim Baross provided the following to inform people about his qualification as a nominee.
League members voted to install Jim to the League Board.

To join the League and thereby be eligible in the future to cast a vote, visit www.bikeleague.org/join.
……..

I, Jim Baross CABO President, am offering to serve on the League Board to promote my personal goal; to “help save the world by and for bicycling.” By that I mean that more and better bicycling can improve our world in several areas – reducing dependence on a fossil-fuel sourced economy, reducing negative traffic impacts – collisions and fatalities from motor vehicle crashes, congestion, and pollution; bringing back healthy active transportation and recreation; etc. As with the health of a “canary in a coal mine”, where there is little or no bicycling a community is at risk.

My qualifications include experiences as an instructor — Certified as an Effective Cycling Instructor 1986 (#185); — 2002, named as a League Cycling Instructor (LCI) Coach conducting more than 45 training seminars certifying more than 400 LCI including 9 Smart Cycling courses to more than 75 Calif. Highway Patrol officers in five Calif. Cities, and certifying 11 Officers as LCI.

As an advocate, I have and continue to serve on bicycling advisory committees & advocacy organizations including – Chair, Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Working Group for the San Diego regional association of governments 1995 to 2013; –Vice Chair, California Bicycle Advisory Committee for the State Dept. of Transportation 1992 to 2017; –Current President. California Association of Bicycling Organizations; –Board member, California Bicycle Coalition 1998 to 2011; –California State Ambassador, League of American Bicyclists 2009; — Co-Chair, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Bicycling Challenge Area.

1975, completed Bikecentennial transcontinental

1986, certified as an Effective Cycling Instructor by LAQ & League of American Bicyclists as a League Cycling Instructor (#185);

2002, named as a League Cycling Instructor Trainer/Coach more than 45 training seminars of League Cycling Instructors (LCI) including certifying 11 Calif Highway Patrol Officers as LCI & conducted 9 courses to more than 75 officers in five Calif. cities. In August 2018 I trained and certified 11 Calif Highway Patrol Officers as LCI.

2002 to present, League Cycling Instructor Coach for 40+ LCI training/certification seminars usually three per year, all but one in California. I have trained more than 400 League Cycling Instructors. I have conducted seminars in San Diego, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Oakland, Sacramento, Davis, Morgan Hill, Fairfax, Oceanside, Bakersfield, Fresno, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Santa Monica, and Palo Alto.

2003, completed the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Technology Transfer Program course “Design, Implementation and Operation of Bicycle Facilities”

2014, completed “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” provided by the California Department of Transportation.

2014, accepted as Cycling Savvy Instructor for the American Bicycling Education Association

1985 to present, providing bicycling instruction as a contractor for the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition.

2011, Interim Executive Director – San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, www.sdbikecoalition.org.

1970 – 2005, Supervising Management Analyst with the City of San Diego; retired 2005

Expert Witness case experience from 2007 through 2019

Bicycling advisory committees and advocacy organizations I have served:

Former Chair – Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Working Group for the San Diego regional association of governments (SANDAG) 1995 to 2013. The Working Group was disbanded in 2013

Former Vice Chair – California Bicycle Advisory Committee for the State Dept of Transportation, a member of this committee since 1992 to 2017. The committee was disbanded in 2017.

Current President – California Association of Bicycling Organizations, www.cabobike.org.

Member since 1998. Currently President.

Former Board member – California Bicycle Coalition, www.calbike.org 1998 to 2011

Former California State Ambassador – League of American Bicyclists, www.bikeleague.org, 2009

Co-Chair – California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Challenge Area 13, Improving Bicycling Safety; since it began through the present

Current Board member and former Executive Director – San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

Former Chair – Normal Heights Community Planning Group 2006 to 2018

Conferences, seminars and similar events at which I have attended and/or presented bicycling information and training:

Speaker/Presenter, San Diego Bicycle Summit 2018, San Diego CA

Attendee to several League of American Bicyclists National Bike Summits including 2019

Attendee, ProWalkProBikeProPlace Conference, 2014 Pittsburgh, Penn.

Speaker/Presenter, Calif. Association for Coordinated Transportation, “Working Together:

Bicycles & Transit” May 2014

Speaker/Presenter, Scripps Hospital Trauma Section, “Bicycle Commuting” May 16, 2014

Speaker/Presenter, Calif. Office of Traffic Safety Summit “Lawful and Effective Bicycling” 2011

Attended Velo Mondial, Copenhagen, 2010 and Amsterdam 2000

Speaker/Presenter, Calif. Office of Traffic Safety, Summit “What to do about all these bicycles in Traffic” 2009

ProWalk-ProBike Conferences, Seattle WA, 2008

Presenter, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan Summit, Anaheim 2008

Presenter, Walk/Bike California Conferences, Oakland 2003, Ventura 2005, Davis 2007

Attendee/Speaker, League of American Bicyclists, Bike Education Conference, Wisconsin and New York City, 2002 & 2007

Attendee, League of American Bicyclists, National Bike Summit, Washington, DC 2006, 2008, and 2011

Presenter, Safety N Kids, Conference, “Children Learn Best by Good Examples From Those They Trust” 2006

Speaker, ITE Conference, “Engineering for Bicycling, From a Bicyclists Point of View” Dana Point, Calif. 2006

Speaker “Autovation” conference, San Diego 2005

Speaker/Presenter, Calif. Office of Traffic Safety’s Summit “A Vision for Roads to Traffic Safety”, 2000

Co-Chair, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Challenge Area 13 – Improve Bicycling Safety; currently serving.

Speaker, Making the Connection International Trails and Greenways Conference

Exhibitor/Speaker, Lifesavers, National Conference on Highway Safety Priorities, 2004

Our General Membership meeting is to be held, as usual, on the Saturday before Memorial Day. Many of us will meet in person in Paso Robles at the State Fairgrounds during the Great Western Bicycle Rally. Some members will participate via teleconference by calling in. The meeting will begin at 1 PM and continue until approximately 4 PM; usually followed by dinner together somewhere in Paso Robles.

Let me know if you have information and/or issues that might be included in the – still draft – agenda. Jimbaross@cox.net

Members in good standing are invited and encouraged to participate either in person, via teleconference, or by designating a proxy for any votes on issues or election of Board and officers. Let me know if you wish to participate and in what manner – in person, teleconference, or by the designation of proxy.

Thanks for your support!

RE: Support for AB 1266
Dear Assemblymember Robert Rivas,
The California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) appreciates your bringing this bill forward. We support this proposal for reducing friction, collisions, and hard feelings between people at intersections that have right turn only lanes (RTOL). CABO supports the intent to assist people – through education, pavement markings and/or signs – to enable bicyclists to get straight through when RTOLs are present.
The legislation at present seeks to modify part of existing CVC 22101 about right turn only lanes as follows,
“When official traffic control devices are placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such the official traffic control devices. devices, except that a driver of a bicycle may travel straight through a right-turn-only lane when pavement markings indicate that the movement is permitted.”
We consider that it is preferable when space allows, that the RTOL remain an RTOL for all travel methods. We know that some people bicycling or scootering intending to go straight do so in an RTOL and would more be more likely to stay too far to the right in an RTOL if/when they are excepted from CVC 22101. Care must be taken that these errors are not encouraged.
We expect that this bill proposes that pavement markings be developed to allow bicycling straight through from an RTOL in a relatively safe manner. The type and placement of pavement markings should be tested, and guidance adopted for inclusion in the California Manual of Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). We recommend that details of the striping, pavement lines and markings, and signs be determined by Caltrans Traffic Engineers, not through legislation. The bill could perhaps include a one-year or less deadline imposed for Caltrans accomplishing CA-MUTCD guidance for “pavement markings” and signs for this purpose.
Sincerely, Jim Baross, President California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO)