A very well done video has been created to help anyone better understand California’s vehicle code 21202, the one that too many people think requires people bicycling to only ride as far to the right in a lane as possible. NOT!

CVC21202

Thank you, CABO members Pete Van Nuys and the Orange County Bicycle Coalition for making this possible, and to Gary Cziko for letting CABOforum know about it.

Gary say; P.S. I particularly like the concluding sentence of Keri’s video narration:

“Indeed, the exceptions to the far-to-the-right requirement of CVC 21202 provide clear recognition by the vehicle code that bicycling far to the right often exposes bicyclists to unnecessary risk, and makes it legal to avoid this risk by controlling the lane.”

Our annual meeting will be held, as usual, in Paso Robles on Saturday afternoon during the Great Western Bicycle Rally. “Held in Paso Robles, CA each Memorial Day Weekend this is the foremost and longest running bicycle festival in the USA. Featuring over 25 ride options and 4 days packed with on and off the bike activities this Cycling Festival has something for all types of cyclist and their families.”
Members intending to attend may respond to check in with us via email to cabobike@cabobike.org.

A blog Well worth the longer-than-usual for email length, about one of the transportation transitions happening around us and by us.
I had to read slowly and/or backtrack for the effect and humor. As Gary C posted, “Both amusing and informative.”
[JB – Yes, I do subscribe.)

I hate your e-bike

Some of what he opined –
“… the reason I hate them is simple: They are an affront to my swollen and sensitive ego.”
[JB – don’t stop now…]

” When people first jump on an ebike, their face lights up. It’s exciting and joyful in a way that you don’t get from a regular bike.”

““Do all those idiots who look like idiots riding those idiot bikes actually get any health benefit from it?” And the heretical answer is yes, they do.”
“To sum up an article in Outside Magazine about e-MTB’s, e-bikes are new technology, they’re not going anywhere, so get used to it. People who use e-bikes to get from point A to point B, rather than those who cycle to make a social statement, show their superiority, improve their standing on Strava leaderboards, or to collect carbon, have bought into the e-bike not as an alternative to dinosaur bicycles, but as an alternative to cars.”

” Henry Grabar, in this fluff piece on Slate, accidentally nails it: “But it’s not the top speed that really differentiates the experience; it’s the speed with which you get there and the ease of maintaining it. It feels like you have superhuman strength, and that’s how people look at you, too (with a mixture of envy and anxiety).””

“But in ten years, tiny internal down tube motors with internal aero wiring will deliver huge watts, slim beauty, and a stake through the heart of traditional cyclist egos. Fortunately, I’ll be 64 and in the market for my first such bike. Hopefully they will also be made of carbon.”

“It took me a dang long time to write this. I hope you enjoyed it! And if you did, I hope you’ll subscribe! Click here and select the “subscribe” link in the upper right-hand corner. Thank you!”

Here is a link to the text of the bill being promoted by the CalBike organization.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB760

Likely coming from a good intent; increasing safety (comfort?). But it seems to need some modification, and some way to overcome city, county, state legislators objections due to fears including anticipation of significant costs.

No mention that I saw for allowing the use of the funding for non-capital programs/activities such as –
Education – of motorists, bicycle users, & pedestrians;
Enforcement – training and implementation;
Encouragement – promoting active transportation modes… was Equity as a goal/measure included?

Proposed HDM *guidance* appears to be needing edit/modification and is incomplete, too restrictive, and unsubstantiated (except perhaps by separation-focused advocates).

But, the intent seems to be good; to force roadway designs (and actions?) that will better accommodate bicycling and walking. Send money and then you might get involved in re-crafting the flawed bill.

New and renovated on-demand/traffic actuated traffic signals are to respond to the presence of bicyclists.
….
SB 672, Fuller. Traffic-actuated signals: motorcycles and bicycles.
Existing law, until January 1, 2018, includes among traffic control devices, a traffic-actuated signal that displays one or more of its indications in response to the presence of traffic by mechanical, visual, electrical, or other means, and requires, upon the first placement of a traffic-actuated signal or replacement of the loop detector of a traffic-actuated signal, that the signal be installed and maintained, to the extent feasible and in conformance with professional engineering practices, so as to detect lawful bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway.
This bill would extend the operation of this requirement indefinitely.
By extending indefinitely requirements regarding traffic-actuated signals applicable to local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
…..
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB672

RE: Support for SB 672
Dear Governor Brown,

On behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO), I respectfully ask for your signature on SB 672. This Legislation if signed into law will remove the 10-year 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 more use of bicycles for transportation and lighter weight bicycles of less mass makes the requirement for adequate detection 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. The current bill, SB 672 also received significant support from both Houses.
Traffic-actuated signals were not originally designed with bicycles and motorcycles in mind. Many traffic actuated signals are activated by detecting a 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 people bicycling, we are at best unreasonably delayed or at worst we must enter that 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 at all intersections!
Please sign SB 672 that eliminates the sunset so that we can continue to improve safety for all roadway users.

Senate Bill 672 (Fuller) is our effort to remove the S​unset from the ​existing/prior​ legislative requirement that new or upgraded on-demand/traffic actuated signals ​are to ​be able to detect bicycles and motorcycles. When our origin bill to require sensitive signals was passed there was an expiration date included – a ​Sunset. That ​Sunset is to trigger – end the requirement – at the end of this year​/2017​ if our SB 672 does not get passed and signed!

Success so far… Assembly Committee passed the bill w/o amending. Now it goes to full Assembly with a good likelihood of passage… and signature from Governor.
A communication – call, email, visit – with your own Assemblymember could be useful.
Later we’ll ask for an encouragement to be sent to the Governor to sign it into law.

​More info.​
It seems pretty clear to me and everyone I talk to that traffic signals should be able to ​detect and ​work for people bicycling and motorcycling as well as for people using ​motor vehicles/​cars.​ It had been surprising to many people there had been no requirement or specifications in California for traffic signals to detect us – we had been invisible! Our previous efforts to get the initial legislation passed and to help Caltrans (thanks to prodigious efforts from CABO’s Bob Shanteau and Alan Wachtel​!) establish guidance criteria for detection were successful though we had to accept the Sunset provision to get it passed originally.

​The Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair Loretta Gonzales Fletcher​ ​and Assemblymember Todd Gloria have helped us get it passed through that committee … ​may​by your Assemblymember did too? ​Our Lobbyist, James Lombardo, provided some interesting insights about the legislative/political issues that almost held up our bill. It seems that even relatively minor bills can get caught up being partisan issues. “Sad.”

​​We heard that ​​someone at ​Caltrans ​apparently originally gave info that the bill implementation would cost $400K​, making passing it a tougher sell. We lobbied for more accurate cost estimates and got ’em! ​See attached decision, “FISCAL SUMMARY​ – Removing the sunset of the traffic-actuated signal provisions has no fiscal impact because it simply allows​ current practice to continue.​”​

Here’s the bill​ -​
​THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 21450.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21450.5. (a) A traffic-actuated signal is an official traffic control signal, as specified in Section 445, that displays one or more of its indications in response to the presence of traffic detected by mechanical, visual, electrical, or other means.
(b) Upon the first placement of a traffic-actuated signal or replacement of the loop detector of a traffic-actuated signal, the traffic-actuated signal shall, to the extent feasible and in conformance with professional traffic engineering practice, be installed and maintained so as to detect a lawful bicycle or motorcycle on the roadway.
(c) Cities, counties, and cities and counties shall not be required to comply with the provisions contained in subdivision (b) until the Department of Transportation, in consultation with these entities, has established uniform standards, specifications, and guidelines for the detection of bicycles and motorcycles by traffic-actuated signals and related signal timing.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

Jim Baross​
Bikes Right; and Left & Center
Bicycling Instructor/Advocate
CABO President
CBAC Vice-Chair
SHSP Bicycling Co-Chair
SDCBC Board Member
Grandfather, Husband, Father, Brother
Friend…

Yes, perhaps this would never? or rarely occur, but it shouldn’t be allowed at all.

CABO will recommend that the new FHWA interim approval regarding two-stage bicycle turn boxes when applied in Calif. not allow implementation of a mandatory prohibition for bicyclists to perform standard vehicular-style left turns if motorists are not similarly prohibited. I hope that you would support CABO in this effort.

Prohibiting people bicycling from performing a normal vehicular left turn where vehicle operators are not prohibited from making a left turn is an unacceptable diminution of bicyclists ability to travel effectively. I am not opposing the interim approval for use of bicycle turn boxes, only the provision allowing prohibition of bicycle movements. It seems fairly obvious that it benefits people bicycling better to leave the option as it is, for the person bicycling to choose which method of turning left serves them best at any one time and location.

None of the following provisions of the FHWA MUTCD would be necessary when bicyclists intending to turn left have the option/choice/right to use the bicycle turn boxes or to perform a vehicular-style left turn.

The use of regulatory signing for two-stage bicycle turn boxes is required where use of the boxes by turning bicycles is mandatory. The signs used shall be the Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box Advance (R9-23) regulatory sign and the TwoStage Bicycle Turn Box (R9-23a, R9-23b) regulatory sign as shown in Attachment IA-20-2. The following design and installation conditions apply to the use of regulatory signing for two-stage bicycle turn boxes.
i. Mandatory use of a two-stage bicycle turn box by turning bicycles should be limited to those locations where physical or operational conditions make it impracticable or unsafe for a bicyclist to merge and make the appropriate turn as would any other vehicle.
ii. Where use of a two-stage bicycle turn box by turning bicycles is mandatory, the Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box Advance (R9-23) regulatory sign shall be mounted in advance of an intersection. The sign should be placed at an adequate distance in advance of the intersection to discourage bicycle traffic from unnecessarily moving out of the bike lane in preparation for a turning movement.
iii. Where use of a two-stage bicycle turn box by turning bicycles is mandatory, at least one Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box (R9-23a or R923b) regulatory sign shall be mounted at the intersection.
1. When the R9-23a sign is used, it shall be mounted on the near side of an intersection.
2. When the R9-23b sign is used, it shall be mounted on the far side of an intersection iv. The minimum size of the Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box regulatory and Advance regulatory signs shall be 12 inches in width by 18 inches in height.

I recommend reading this paper co-authored by Michelle DeRobertis, a former CBAC participant among other activities. It is published in the June 2017 issue of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal.

Abstract – “The convergence of many issues makes it timely to reassess the role of the urban arterial: environmental concerns, climate change, complete streets, sustainability, urban livability indices, and indeed less per capita driving. While some might say technology will save us, this paper purports that something more fundamental needs to change.”

The authors’ recommendation seems to be for appropriate control of access/use to the public roadway/”Commons” to reduce motor vehicle use(abuse?) and provide better choices … some via coercive processes – charge for parking, etc..

The Tragedy of the Commons of the Urban Arterial.
You can click on the title of the article within this link: http://transportchoice.org/tragedy-commons-revisited-transportation-perspective/ or perhaps

Tragedy of the Commons revisited from a transportation perspective.

The annual meeting for general updates, the election of officers, appointment of Area Representatives, etc. is May 27th.
Is your membership current? It’s not too late to renew, signup, etc. Click above under membership or use https://cabobike.org/amember/signup

We will meet in person at the VIP Board Room for the Paso Robles Fair Grounds, upstairs in the Frontier Town area of the grounds; to the right of the main entrance. Participation by teleconferencing will be available for members beginning at 1 PM – for those members who will not be attending in person. Members may contact me directly for teleconferencing information. The official meeting will begin at 2 PM.

Renew and or add CABO memberships via CABObike.org or directly via https://cabobike.org/amember/signup.