Here’s what we are pedaling to Calif. State Legislators. Copy and send to your State Senator if you agree.
Support for SB 672
Dear Chairman Beall,
On behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), I respectfully request a Yes Vote on SB 672. This Legislation if passed into law would remove the Sunset on then Assemblymember Fuller’s bill (AB 1581 2007-2008 Session) that required cities, counties, and Caltrans to provide traffic signals that detect bicycles and motorcycles when new or modified installation were made of on-demand/traffic-actuated traffic signals. The evolution toward light weight bikes and parts to increase riding efficiency and fuel economy makes this requirement even more important for safety in the future. The original bill, AB 1581, passed unanimously in both Houses, with no No Votes but currently Sunsets on January 1st, 2018.

Traffic actuated signals were not originally designed with bicycles and motorcycles in mind. Many traffic actuated signals are activated by detecting magnetic mass, which bicycles and motorcycles have much less of than automobiles. When an on-demand/traffic-actuated traffic signal does not detect and change for someone, they are at best unreasonably delayed or at worst they must enter the intersection against a red light- a dangerous situation for anyone. Over the last 10 years the use of traffic-actuated signals that detect bicycles and motorcycles has been successful at reducing these dangerous occurrences. Removing the Sunset will continue progress toward making travel safer for everyone in California!

Please Vote Yes on SB 672 and urge the other members of the Transportation and Housing Committee to also vote Yes on SB 672. Let’s all continue to improve traffic safety in California.
Thank you.

I have taken the opportunity to participate in the Facebook Donate Tuesday opportunity; donations are to be matched through this process. Try it out at https://www.facebook.com/donate/10210656672994190/

And/or renew your membership or donate directly via this web site under “membership” and thanks.

Ride on.
Jim Baross, CABO President

Colleagues:
I have been given OK to distribute the draft December agenda for the Calif. Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC). The draft December agenda has some proposals to affect bicycling that you may find controversial and needing modification… or you may like them as is. See the attached agenda for yourself; search bicycle to find the issues within the large and long agenda.

Here is a link to their December draft agenda, https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnjdU7YRzTcf6FRqV2jFRWholT7N or https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnjdU7YRzTcf6FR0EuK9MMYayxUM . Or ask me to send you the file.
Sept meeting notes – http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ctcdc/docs/agenda-2016-09-01.pdf

Of first concern to me is the apparent conflating the new Separated Bikeways, Class IV with Bike Lanes, Class II. The Calif. Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) worked hard to make it clear that Class IVs are not subject to the CVC 21208 requirements that are applicable to Bike Lanes. It is unfortunate and apparently contributing to Caltrans confusion that many people, including some bicycling advocates, mistakenly call Class IV bikeways “Protected Bike Lanes”! PLEASE STOP IT! People bicycling are required per CVC 21208 to bike within a Bike Lane except under limited circumstances. Class IV Separated Bikeways offer some improvements but people bicycling should NOT be REQUIRED to use them either by law or by misunderstandings due to their being titled or signed as Bike Lanes!

I will be collecting comments to compile and submit on behalf of the Calif. Bicycle Advisory Committee (CBAC) to Caltrans for potential inclusion with the final CTCDC agenda. Though the CBAC members and the CTCDC staff will decide what gets included, I encourage you to offer your comments, ideas, etc. for potential inclusion with the CBAC submittal. Send to jimbaross@cox.net.

Safety tip of the week – REPORT aggressive motorists!
REPORT aggressive motorists! If a motorist threatens you with their deadly weapon – their vehicle – get their plate and go to the appropriate police or sheriff department and INSIST that a report is FILED. Attorney Seth Davidson explains why this is so crucial in his piece, Don’t take it lying down:

Don’t take it lying down

And a follow-up piece, The people police:

The people police

One report alone probably won’t accomplish much. Tragically, police really have to be pushed to pursue these cases. But once they have more than one report on the same driver, and aggressive drivers are likely to be repeat offenders, that’s a pattern, and even reluctant police may be spurred into action. So don’t take it lying down, get that report filed!

Feel free to copy/paste/edit and use this information any way you wish with your clubs.
You can write your own report and insist they file it. The key is to have this report pop up when somebody else files a report on the same license or car description, or the police look it up because of an actual crash. Without that history on file it’s likely to just look like a one-time incident or “accident”. We have to build up records on these sociopaths!

CABO’s annual General Membership and Board meeting is held every year on Saturday in Paso Robles, CA during the Great Western Bicycle Rally beginning at 1 PM. All CABO members and member organization representatives are invited to attend in person or to participate via teleconference.
For more information or to request teleconference access, contact me, CABO President Jim Baross, via Facebook PM, or via email to cabobike@cabobike.org.

Caltrans is conducting Regional Forums across the state with stakeholders to support the development of the first California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The web site on this page http://www.cabikepedplan.org/rsvp-stakeholders has details.

Redding, Monday, April 18, 12:30
Oakland, Tuesday, April 19, 12:30
Fresno, April 22, 12:30
Riverside, May 2, 12:30
San Diego, May 3, 12:30
San Luis Obispo, May 5, 4:00
Los Angeles, May 10, 3:30
Folsom, May 11, ??

It’s probably a good idea to pack the halls. Tell a friend. Sign up!

Jim (sadly cannot attend any of these) Baross
CABO President
Bicycling Instructor/Advocate

California Assemblymember Ting has introduced a bill, AB 2509, to clarify the Calif. Vehicle Code 21202 that too often gets described as the “ride as far to the right as possible” rule or “get out of the way” by some motorists and police officers. CABO is supporting Assemblymember Ting’s effort but also recommending two things.

Why not just deleted 21202 – it’s useless and dangerous, or consider our recommendations for the wording of a modified 21202.

Here’s what we recommended:
21202
(a) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person operating a bicycle in any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When traveling in a lane that is too narrow for a vehicle to safely pass the bicycle within the lane with at least three feet of clearance.
(4) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to Section 21656, including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, and surface hazards.
(5) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(6) When riding within a bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207.
(7) When riding within a travel lane where an official traffic control device indicates that the lane is a shared lane or that bicycles may use the full lane. (8) When bicycling two or more abreast in any situation described in sections (1) to (7), inclusive.
(c) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway that carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as close to the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Caltrans District 5 asked for comments from bicyclists about their proposal to detour bicycling for TWO YEARS during their US 101 North Paso Rehab Project. Our response is below.

Project Manager Amy Donatello:

I am the President of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations writing to express our surprise and dismay that Caltrans would be considering closing bicycling access ​- for two years! – ​along 101 as described​ for the US 101 North Paso Rehab Project​. It is our understanding, and should be yours, that Caltrans does not have the authority to detour bicyclists while allowing motorized traffic through the work zone. Caltrans ​is supposed to follow ​D​eputy Directive 64 R-2. ​Caltrans is supposed to consider the needs of bicyclists early in the project development process.​ ​Bicycle users and the general public should have been consulted before the traffic management plan was developed, not at this very late stage in the project development process. A staged construction strategy that ignores the rights of people bicycling should not have been approved. Please act within the law, follow Caltrans policy, and provide space for bicyclists on 101 during the project.

Additionally, it is obvious to us that the roads shown on the map (though you didn’t specify a detour route) entail significant out of direction travel, which violates the guidance in PDPM Chapter 31. ​The only alternative routes we see provide ​steep grades, narrow or no shoulders & greatly increased distances. Some destinations are only available via 101.

Caltrans staff should not exceed its legal authority. There may be other options to a paved shoulder in some areas, such as providing a 24/7 shuttle service to get bicyclists past these segments, or providing a 16′ wide lane with “share the road” signs, or installing “bikes may use full lane” signs and erecting temporary 40 mph (or lower) speed limit signs on short segments, such as approaches to/on bridges where it could be more difficult (but not impossible) to provide more width for bicycle traffic. All of these options should have been explored during the development of the traffic management plan.

Some of our members have provided some addition comments.

1) Note that the project is in error. There is no access from the east side of the Salinas River (River Road) to the west side via Wellsona Rd. So cutting bicycle access to Hi​gh​way 101 effectively restricts access to the area south of San Miguel to Wellsona in the Salina River Basin. This includes the lower portion of San Marcos Rd. The Indian Valley—River Rd detour totally bypasses this area. The bike detour must provide access between San Miguel to Wellsona. A possibility would be to provide 2-way access on Cemetery Road west of Hi​gh​way 101 and create an extension (perhaps a 2-way class I bike facility) from the end of Cemetery Rd to San Marcos Rd and then detouring on San Marcos Road to Wellsona Rd.

2) On the north end, using Indian Valley Road as the detour between Bradley and San Miguel adds additional mileage and significant grades. Far better would be access though Camp Roberts. ​There may be an almost complete bypass through Camp Roberts, but there are short segments on the Google map shown as unimproved. Also, there appears to be short segment between the south end of Camp Roberts and San Miguel where the only access is Hi​gh​way 101 (the frontage road on the other side appears to be one-way). If access is granted and made continuous through Camp Roberts and a 2-way connection is enabled between Camp Roberts and San Miguel, then that ​might fix the north end problem.

3) Why not build one-half of the highway on a new adjacent alignment, rebuild/rehab one of the older alignments and turn the remaining old alignment portion into an paralleling frontage road that would serve the area’s residents and become a nice paralleling bike route. This roadway was built in the early 1960’s by Madonna Construction and as such has outlived its usefulness. Building a new alignment probably would not cost much more than tearing out and replacing miles of old degraded concrete roadway.

4) The national bicycle touring organization, Adventure Cycling, publishes route maps for bicycling tourists that includes the proposed section to be closed. Disrupting this route will inconvenience and perhaps discourage bicycle tourism through our State. ​If you go forward with this closure they should be notified to alert their member travelers.​

Jim Baross
CABO President

Yes, CABO is an all-volunteer run organization, but we do have operating and legislative monitoring costs. Your contributions are necessary for continuing our mission to encourage, protect, and improve cycling in California. CABO exists to serve you the community of cyclists – bike clubs and their members, commuters, cycle-tourists, mountain bikers, utility cyclists, pedicab drivers, racers, and all individual cyclists.

Annual Memberships are now based on the Calendar Year – January to December. Midyear memberships made by October are credited to and through the following year. It is time now for all to put some money where your interests are paramount; CABO. Presently there are 73 clubs, organizations, and individuals contributing to CABO; how about you?

Organization Member Annual Dues (voting memberships)
•$50 for fewer than 250 members
•$100 for 251 to 500 members
•$150 for 501 to 1000 members
•$200 for greater than 1000 members

Supporting Associates Annual Dues (non-voting)
•$25 – Supporting Individuals
•$50 – Supporting Businesses

Additional contributions are cheerfully accepted! CABO is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation to which your donations, including membership dues, may be tax deductible; check with your tax professional.

Please fill out a membership form, available here under Membership, and mail to:

CABO Treasurer
c/o Alan Forkosh
33 Moss Ave #204
Oakland, CA 94610

Alternatively, you may quickly and easily donate via PayPal using the DONATE button at cabobike.org/membership.

Thank you and here’s my wish for you to have a great bicycling year 2016!

Jim Baross
CABO President

CBC is now including “Protecting the Right to Ride” as a strategy. Good for them! Here’s their new statement on the subject; though still calling Cycletracks/Class IVs as “Protected Bike Lanes.”

The California Bicycle Coalition seeks to enable more people to bicycle in California, for healthier, safer, and more prosperous communities for all. Our goal is to enable triple the number of bicycle trips by 2020, and we use four strategies to get there. Strategy #3 is to ensure that Californians respect the rights to the road of people on bicycles and that the laws, regulations, and legal system promote bicycling and protect those who choose to ride. The surest way to increase that respect is to increase the number of people who bike, but the rules and regulations about bikeways and roadway use are also important. Those regulations are especially important on roads with adjacent separated bikeways, sometimes called cycle tracks or protected bike lanes.

While we hope that cycle tracks class are so well designed that everybody will choose to use them in place of the mixed traffic lanes because they’re superior, we also hope that even well-designed separated bikeways overflow with cyclists into the roadway. This is one reason why it’s important that cyclists continue to enjoy the rights to the road adjacent to a protected bike lane, as is the case thanks to the Protected Bikeways Act that we sponsored.
Most planners and officials consider cycle tracks to be a kind of bike lane and part of the roadway. If the Protected Bikeways Act had not designated them as a new type of bikeway, a “class 4 cycle track”, separate from the roadway, current laws about bike lane use and roadway positioning would have compelled their use. The California Bicycle Coalition will never support mandatory use of cycle tracks, and supports repeal of the unnecessary requirements to use a bike lane and to ride “as far to the right as practicable.”

It’s important to note that the rules sponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition protect cyclists’ rights to the roadway regardless of what they are popularly called. For that reason, we refer to them as protected bike lanes because studies show that’s the easiest way to describe them to the public. Police officers will sometimes write tickets for behaviors that are not against the law, like riding outside of a cycle track, or riding side-by-side or not riding in the gutter. Changing that requires education of the cops and getting many more people on bikes so that more officers and their family members are regular riders, bringing us back to our goal: attracting twice as many “non cyclists” to cycling as those who currently cycle.