CABO opposes SB 569. Forward to cyclists.

[Jim Baross]

Senate Bill 569

The California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO; CABObike.org) strongly opposes SB 569 (Blakespear), as amended June 11. This bill appears to be an overreaction to a local dispute. 

SB 569 bill prevents the removal of physical separation on existing bikeways without a unique, extensive, and enormously detailed technical analysis and public process that would, in practice, be prohibitive, or perhaps impossible, to provide. No other roadway design feature enjoys similar protection. Nor is there any requirement for a corresponding technical justification when bikeways (or other design features) are installed. This asymmetry would severely limit the ability of local agencies to modify bikeways after gaining experience with their usage and safety. It might even, no doubt contrary to the author's intent, discourage the provision of bikeways that, once installed, would be effectively locked in permanently. 

In addition, the bill's language is confusing and ambiguous, referring to "physical separation" of Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways, when only Class IV bikeways, as defined in Streets and Highways Code §890.4, actually feature physical separation. Class I bikeways are shared-use paths, completely apart from the roadway. Class II bikeways are bike lanes established on the roadway, indicated by a painted stripe or buffer, but not a physical separation. Class III bikeways, or bike routes, are simply roadways designated by signs or markings as particularly suitable for bicyclists. Only Class IV bikeways, also called cycle tracks or separated bikeways, involve physical separation using flexible posts, rigid barriers, or similar devices. 

The bill also refers to a Class III bikeway that "is" or "is not" a sharrow. But a Class III bikeway is a designated roadway, and a sharrow, or shared lane marking, is a roadway marking. They are in no way equivalent. And neither involves physical separation. 

This bill is a hastily offered solution to a problem that does not exist and could create widespread unintended consequences. For these reasons, CABO must oppose it, and we urge the Transportation Committee to do the same. 

Jim Baross

CABO President

[petevannuys]

I fear that by responding to these criticisms of the language and revising to remove the ambiguities Blakespear can persuade passage by progressives who don't know the flaws in Cl4s due to a lack of engineering standards. Serge's suggestion would have addressed that issue.

Sent from my Galaxy

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOdir" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cabodir+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cabodir/CAG28zXeShgkvAqt-uBSKvXbfKBTPkJs%3DWO2VZBFYMD0QCBUXfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

Yes, I think it’s critical to not bring attention to relatively minor issues that can be easily tweaked. Focus on the major stuff only. 

Serge

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/548168962.328206.1781793313520%40cox.net.

[Alan Wachtel]

Serge wrote:

Yes, I think it’s critical to not bring attention to relatively minor issues that can be easily tweaked. Focus on the major stuff only. 

Serge

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 7:35 AM petevannuys <petev...@cox.net> wrote:

I fear that by responding to these criticisms of the language and revising to remove the ambiguities Blakespear can persuade passage by progressives who don't know the flaws in Cl4s due to a lack of engineering standards. Serge's suggestion would have addressed that issue.

To me, these minor issues demonstrate how sloppily written and poorly thought out the bill is, and how little whoever drafted it (and presumably the author) understand even basic concepts. I'd also contend that this bill isn't the place to argue the merits of Class IV bikeways. Advocates will just point to DIB 89 and DIB 94 (DIBs are considered supplements to the HDM) and the CA MUTCD as already settled standards, and the Legislature isn't going to be interested in adjudicating that dispute. We should focus on how unreasonable the process is. Serge made some good points along those lines that could also be included with the letter. 

~ Alan

[Karl Rudnick]

Stephan - 

The article in the Coast News states that SDCBC is leaning toward local control. I would hope that is SDCBC's stance in opposing SB 569.

It's important to note that unlike Class I (multiuse) Class II (regular in the roadway), Class III (route signs) bikeways, Class IV bikeways have no strict standards, only guidelines which makes any installation inarguably experimental. 

We've witnessed 6 years of the Cardiff 101 "experiment" and we've learned that there was not the required initial analysis for installation that SB 569 claims. No analytical methodology could have predicted the carnage resulting in more than 40 injuries, many serious and one fatality that experiment has created. There's no data to even prove increased mode share, a primary objective of that hasty, quick build project.

Plans have been proposed to fix the Cardiff 101 disaster to return and improve safety for the every day cyclists with a separated facility for the casual cyclists, including all abilities 8-80, folks. That improvement is due to local leaders and much input from experienced cyclists. To require approval by a single licensed engineer who may have political motives is completely unnecessary and could make such improvement impossible. Like installation, fixing mistakes, especially for facilities with no strict standards, is solely a local context issue. SB 569 takes away that local control. It appears to be a shameful attempt to put *statewide* shackles on all installiions to save a senator's pet local projects.

-- Karl 

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 5:50 PM Stephan Vance <stepha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim is correct that the language in this bill is sloppy, referring to separated Class I, II III, and IV bikeways when only Class IVs have a physical barrier and Class Is are separated from traffic by distance, but that is something that can be easily fixed as the bill continues through the legislative process. It is not a reason to oppose the bill. The purpose of the bill is to prevent the removal of bike infrastructure without ensuring an equivalent or better route exists or will be created. Making streets that are safe for all users is a fundamental principle that guides the Bike Coalition's work, and that is why we should support this bill. It's also why the California Bicycle Coalition supports the bill.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advocacy+u...@sdbikecoalition.org.

[John Eldon]

Stephan -- we can fix the bill quite easily. Reword it to prohibit the removal of (painted) Class II bike lanes (including converting them to Class IVs). Problem solved. Blakespear has other specific interests and would oppose this hostile amendment, but this my rewording would genuinely accomplish what she purports to stand for, i.e, safe accommodations for cyclists on the road, instead of setting them up for right hooks, side entries, and left crosses at every intersection and driveway cut, and preventing them from avoiding potholes and debris in the cycle lane, let alone the obvious hazards posed by curbs, bollards, and other street furniture in the first place. 

John 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABkk2QZZa6VPwX9X11N3hTdJNRTKn5hHAa7ArAKjX8Este2mag%40mail.gmail.com.