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.

[bikerick]

SB569 has been amended to simply require public hearings for bikeway removal or modification that reduces user safety or mobility https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb569 .  So, this bill now cuts both ways. In Santa Cruz portions of Class II bike lanes have either been removed or converted to Class IV bikeways, so if this passes, that could no longer happen without a public hearing. There are only a few bollard "protected" Class IV bikeways so far, but at least one has at least been problematic and many bollards have been removed. So, proponents could argue that such remove reduces safety and demand a public hearing.

Rick Hyman

[Alan Wachtel]

Rick Hyman wrote:

SB569 has been amended to simply require public hearings for bikeway removal or modification that reduces user safety or mobility https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb569 .  So, this bill now cuts both ways. In Santa Cruz portions of Class II bike lanes have either been removed or converted to Class IV bikeways, so if this passes, that could no longer happen without a public hearing. There are only a few bollard "protected" Class IV bikeways so far, but at least one has at least been problematic and many bollards have been removed. So, proponents could argue that such remove reduces safety and demand a public hearing.

Jim and I raised this point with Assembly Transportation Committee staff and the author's office. The committee analysis reveals why the author would be unimpressed: 

"The author of this bill provided four examples to the committee where cities have downgraded bikeways (Vista, Culver City) or are considering downgrading them (Encinitas, San Mateo). For example, due to concerns that road narrowing and angled parking increased safety risks and vehicle congestion, including the inability of first responders to expeditiously travel along a corridor, the City of Encinitas recently approved designs that reduce the separation of a bikeway, reverting it from a Class IV to a Class II bikeway. The Vista City Council voted to remove recently installed berms separating bikeways from certain roadways citing safety risks to vehicles and bicyclists though the decision was disputed and not unanimous. Culver City converted a separated bikeway to a shared bike/bus lane. However, the City of San Mateo is no longer considering relocating or replacing a bikeway to restore parking spaces." 

The Highway Design Manual declares that "It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II, III, and IV should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application." But despite this assertion and the cities' stated safety concerns, the author seems to consider any modification of a Class IV bikeway to be ipso facto a downgrade that reduces safety or mobility. For the same reason, any modification that creates a Class IV bikeway would automatically be an upgrade that increases safety or mobility. The requirement for a public hearing is only considered to apply in one direction. 

~ Alan

[Scott Mace]

The San Mateo bikeways mentioned are not Class IV at all. Parking was removed from one side of the street in favor of adding a Class 2 bike lane, but parking was preserved on the other side of the street, and a door zone Class 2 bike lane added there. This was done in 2023 with federal funds. The San Mateo city council subsequently considered restoring parking on the side where it was removed, which would have eliminated the bike lane on that side of the street, but also eliminate the DZBL -- which would have been safer by virtually any measure.

That CalBike and SVBC champion the addition of any door zone bike lanes in the last half of the 2020s defies easy explanation.

Scott Mace

--

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/f9ef64ee-5830-4bf7-ae6b-02c8801f7efe%40gmail.com.

[Ron Medak]

Alan, 

I caution you not to believe Blakespear’s stated goal (improving cycle safety) with whatever her actual concealed intentions are.  She has not demonstrated any honest attempts to actually improve cycle safety.  One can only speculate as to what her actual agenda is (other than promoting her political career).  

Ron

--

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/f9ef64ee-5830-4bf7-ae6b-02c8801f7efe%40gmail.com.

[Serge Issakov]

Ron,

Like the myriad of other biking advocates who support car-bike separation, Blakespear genuinely believes that physically separating bikes from cars is safer due to a variety of reasons, experiences, and misunderstandings.  Facts don't matter.  This is a deeply held emotion.  But it's genuine.

File under: know your enemy.

Serge

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CA%2BK_zRVAXOYw0F%2BEZAhSyDWodM8%2BVW-B%2B6iC9BZKz-HUyBz69Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Medak]

Hi Serge,

I don’t want to go too far in the political weeds with this (I considered not responding to Alan’s comment, but I’ll plead being tired as I was just finishing a 24 hour route from Sweden to SD).  My own view of Blakespear is that she is a very narcissistic, completely self-centered individual with zero core values who spied an opportunity for political advancement.  None of these massive social engineering efforts that are going on are done in a vacuum.  I don’t think any of these efforts are necessarily her ideas.  This (central control over transportation and housing and the digitalization of finance/currency) is being done in order to better control the population (i.e., us) in dense cities.  It is being done not only nationally but internationally.  Our little realm of recreational (and utility) bicycling is just collateral damage in this massive effort.  Whether CB “believes” any of this is really not at all important.  She is just tasked with implementing it from a public office and that is what she is trying to accomplish.  I’m sure she has been told and/or imagines that if she succeeds in her task she will be rewarded, one way or another.  As far as I can tell safety means nothing to her.  I’ve never seen her pay any attention whatsoever to a crash or fatality if it couldn’t be used to further her agenda. That alone shows how much she cares about safety.

Ron

[John Eldon]

Having known Blakespear for more than a decade, I side with Serge. Yes, she has already-demonstrated ego-driven political aspirations and narcissism, but she pales in comparison to our president in that regard. She genuinely thinks she knows best regarding segregation of cyclists, but put that into context. People who fear riding in traffic are mostly afraid of getting hit from behind or sideswiped, and they focus on that while being either oblivious to or in denial of the very real intersection and driveway conflicts we talk about here, not to mention hitting the bollards themselves. They think like pedestrians and expect most of us to share their views and act as wheeled pedestrians. (In contrast, the prospect of being right-hooked or left-crossed or hit from the side while crossing a street as a pedestrian sometimes scares the cr@p out of me.) 

As for political parties, we now have Democrats advocating "separate-but-equal" facilities and Republicans preaching "bikes don't belong," so we end up with a lot of partisan polarization garbage in this debate. 

John E.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CA%2BK_zRVtUO_HZGvmGK-b1Zb2F_dwg_pWWG5A4g%3DgDLH8-FSqdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ron Medak]

John and Serge,

I never have a problem agreeing to disagree with anybody who is honestly putting forth their opinion, so I’ll do so here.  I don’t have the good fortune (sarcasm intended) to know Blakespear personally but I’ve followed much of what she has done and said for over ten years now.  I worked hard on Julie Thunder’s mayoral campaign and studied Blakespear’s positions and statements closely during that time. The joke about knowing when a politician is lying by whether their lips were moving was never so accurate as applied to her.  All JMHO, of course.  It’s been many decades since I put any faith in a political party and I’m happy being an independent.  In my perfect world sovereignty would be at the local level, and people like the ones we share on these threads would be the ones making policy.  

Nuff said by me.  Back to business.  

I plan to go to this event. Please don’t share with others that I am planning to attend but if any of you have nothing better to do on Saturday and are curious why SDCBC is organizing to keep Blakespear’s dangerous and failed design in place on SFD you are certainly welcome to join me!