The California Association of Bicycling Organizations strongly supports AB 2707, as amended April 21. By modifying existing limitations on length, AB 2707 would allow public transit buses to carry front racks capable of accommodating three bicycles.
Combining bus and bicycle travel benefits both modes of transport, and there is great demand for this change.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations respectfully continues to oppose SB 1183. The April 21 amendments, replacing a sales tax on bicycles with a surcharge on motor vehicle registration, may help reduce the administrative issues associated with collection. But we still have serious concerns with the bill’s restriction of the revenue for “improvements to paved and natural surface trails, including the rehabilitation, restoration, and expansion of existing trails, the development of new trails, and the maintenance and upkeep of local and regional trail systems and networks.”
Although the source of funding no longer involves a bicycle tax, and the bill is no longer titled the “Local Bike Infrastructure Enhancement line 28 Act of 2014,” Legislative Counsel’s digest still describes it as “Vehicle registration fees: surcharge for bicycle infrastructure.” To the extent that park districts may want to improve and maintain unpaved trails, including those for mountain bikes, this is fine. But cities and counties, which would also be authorized to impose the surcharge (subject to two-thirds voter approval), might have less need for unpaved park trails and greater need for paved bicycle infrastructure. To the extent that the surcharge is perceived as a source of bicycle funding, restricting it to “trails” is inappropriate.
The term “trail” has no meaning in the Streets and Highways Code or design standards as a bicycle facility. To the extent that it’s interpreted as an off-road facility (properly known as a “bike path”), this source of funding would encourage local agencies to focus on paths regardless of their suitability, when other types of bicycle improvements might be safer and more efficient. If the funding is to be used for bicycles, it would be better to allow local discretion similar to project eligibility under the Active Transportation Program, which can be found in Streets and Highways Code §2382(e) and could be incorporated by reference.
There is an additional obstacle, in that several courts have held that all paved bike paths are considered recreational trails subject to comprehensive local immunity from liability, regardless of other statutes whose intent was to require that bike path adhere to specified design standards. As a result, bicyclists who have been injured by noncompliant or poorly maintained facilities cannot recover damages, and agencies have no legal incentive to adhere to established engineering standards. These injustices could be remedied simply by amending Government Code §831.4(b) to read “(b) Any trail used for the above purposes that is not a bikeway as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code.” Alternatively, the following sentence could be added to Streets and Highways Code §890.4(a): “A Class I bikeway is not a trail for purposes of Government Code Section 831.4.”
Amendments such as the ones we suggest would make us much more favorably disposed toward the bill.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations, the association of California’s bicycle clubs, respectfully continues to oppose AB 2173. The April 22 amendment to increase the gross brake horsepower of a gas-powered motorized bicycle (or moped) defined in Vehicle Code §406(a) from 2 to 4 is only incidental to the bill’s primary purpose. The expected amendment to delete Section 2, which would currently permit low-speed electric bicycles on all bicycle paths and equestrian, hiking, or recreational trails, unless prohibited by local ordinance, would, however, remove one of our major concerns.
Electric bikes tend to attract an older demographic who are looking for recreation or local transportation, and a modicum of exercise, without excessive physical effort. They can help to expand the constituency for bicycle travel, and we would like to encourage their use. But even the definition that would remain in AB 2173 after the amendments raises a number of questions.
Under existing law, the type of motorized bicycle defined in §406(b) must have a power output of 1,000 watts or less, and must not be able to propel the bicycle faster than 20 mph on “ground level,” either by itself or with human-powered assistance. §24016 specifies that operators must be 16 years of age or older, must wear a helmet, and are exempt from insurance, driver license, and license plate requirements. That section also includes additional equipment requirements.
AB 2173 renames this device a “low-speed electric bicycle.” The power output is reduced from 1,000 watts to 750 watts (1 HP). The motor must now be incapable of propelling the device at a speed of more than 20 miles per hour “on a paved level surface, when powered solely by a motor when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds.” As in current law, the motor must be incapable of further increasing the speed of the device when human power is used to propel the device faster than 20 miles per hour. The weight would be limited to 80 pounds.
We would like to understand why this is the best definition. Federal law (23 U.S.C. §217(j)(2)) defines “electric bicycle” as “any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not in excess of 20 miles per hour”—although that’s only for purposes of prohibiting them from federal-aid trails and pedestrian walkways, except where state or local regulations permit. Are different definitions in use in other jurisdictions? Consistency would be desirable.
Can a top speed of 20 mph “when powered solely by a motor when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds” be verified empirically, either by the manufacturer or by a police officer? It seems unnecessarily complicated. What about aftermarket devices—how do they fit in?
Finally, the new definition replaces the old one., Where does this leave electric motorized bicycles that meet the old definition, but not the new low-speed one? (I understand that such devices do exist.) Do they now become the first type of moped, and how does this change the age, helmet, insurance, driver license, license plate, and equipment requirements currently applicable to them under §24016 (which the bill would transfer to the newly defined low-speed electric bicycle)? Or would they legally be some other type of device?
We would be glad to continue working on these questions, but enacting even the definitional changes prematurely could make operational regulations harder to agree on later on.

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations, the association of California’s bicycle clubs, respectfully opposes AB 2054, as amended February 20. While we endorse the use of alternative transportation such as electric skateboards, the ideas here are not fully worked out.
As introduced, the bill expressed the Legislature’s intent to define “electric motorized skateboard.” But that has not been done (though the term “electric” has expanded to “electrically”). The bill should probably begin with a definition of “skateboard,” as part of the Vehicle Code’s Definitions division—perhaps something along the lines of “a device for riding upon while standing, consisting of a short piece of wood, plastic, or metal mounted on roller-skate wheels, and having no seat or handlebars” (possibly specifying the size, number, or arrangement of the wheels). “Electric motorized skateboard” could then be a type of skateboard that has the properties described on p. 3 of the bill. The insurance disclaimer also belongs logically with this definition (as with the current definitions of “motorized bicycle” and “motorized scooter” in Vehicle Code §§406 and 407.5, and the proposed definition in AB 2173 (Bradford) of “low-speed electric bicycle”). It doesn’t fit under the Rules of the Road division.
But these are technicalities. The substance of the bill leaves many questions unanswered. How can electric motorized skateboards be a practical means of transportation if they’re permitted in bike lanes, but not on roadways? What does the rider do when the bike lane ends (or before it begins), or to turn onto a street without bike lanes? What are the operating characteristics of electric motorized skateboards: For instance, can they maneuver and stop quickly enough for street use? What are the consequences of shared use with pedestrians and equestrians on hiking and recreational trails?
What about lighting requirements at night? Are operators subject to vehicle registration, operator licensing, or helmet requirements? For comparison, see §24016 for the corresponding regulations for electric bicycles.
We would like to see these issues addressed so we can evaluate electrically motorized skateboards on their merits.

I attended and must congratulate the California Bicycle Coalition, now apparently to be titled CalBike, for putting in a significant amount of work to bring off a successful gathering November 7 through 10 of people interested in promoting bicycling in California. Congratulations!

Now I recommend we “talk this up” to help everyone understand that bicycling belongs; people bicycling may establish their right of way in a lane as needed and motorists/others seeking to pass are to do so safely with enough space – not just without hitting the bicyclist. Go for it!

“Cyclists will get 3-foot buffer under new law”
By LAURA OLSON, Associated Press 5 P.M.SEPT. 23, 20130
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday he has signed legislation requiring California drivers to stay at least 3 feet away when passing bicyclists.

The proposal from Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, is intended to better protect cyclists from aggressive drivers. It states that if drivers cannot leave 3 feet of space, they must slow down and pass only when it would not endanger the cyclist’s safety.

The law will go into effect Sept. 16, 2014. Current law requires a driver to keep a safe distance when passing a bicyclist but does not specify how far that is.

At least 22 states and the District of Columbia define a safe passing distance as a buffer of at least 3 feet, according to a legislative analysis of the bill.

Bradford’s bill, AB1371, was sponsored by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an avid cyclist who was injured in 2010 after a taxi driver abruptly pulled in front of him. It also drew support from several cyclist groups, such as the California Association of Bicycling Organizations.

“This gives clear information to drivers about passing at a safe distance,” said Steve Finnegan, government affairs manager for the Automobile Club of Southern California, which supported the legislation. “Everyone using the road needs to follow the rules and watch out for everyone else.”

Brown signed the legislation after vetoing similar measures in 2011 and 2012. Those bills would have allowed drivers to cross a double-yellow line to make room for a cyclist or required them to slow to 15 mph when passing within 3 feet.

The governor cited concerns that the provisions could spark more crashes or make the state liable for collisions resulting from a driver crossing a yellow dividing line.

Some lawmakers who opposed the bill, such as Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said it would be difficult to estimate a 3-foot distance while driving, especially when cyclists also might be swerving to avoid road hazards.

Bradford’s spokesman, Matt Stauffer, said case-by-case enforcement will be up to local police departments. The overall aim is to remind drivers and cyclists that they have a responsibility to behave safely on the road, Stauffer said.

A violation of the new 3-foot requirement would be punishable by fines starting at $35. If unsafe passing results in a crash that injures the cyclist, the driver could face a $220 fine.

The Associated Press