AB 1107: minor changes to 21208 wording

[Serge Issakov]

Anyone else see this?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1107_bill_20110218_introduced.html

BILL NUMBER: AB 1107	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Fletcher

                        FEBRUARY 18, 2011

   An act to amend Section 21208 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
bicycles.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1107, as introduced, Fletcher. Vehicles: bicycles: rules of the
road: bicycle lanes.
   Existing law requires any person operating a bicycle upon a
roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in
the same direction to ride within the bicycle lane, except as
provided.
   This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes in that
provision.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 21208 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
   21208.  (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207,  any   a
 person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that
time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may
move out of the lane under any of the following situations:
   (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane  ,  if
the overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
   (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
   (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
   (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
   (b)  No   A  person operating a bicycle
shall  not  leave a bicycle lane until the movement can be
made with reasonable safety and then only after giving an appropriate
signal in the manner  provided   specified
 in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 22100)  in the
event that any   if a  vehicle may be affected by
the movement.                                  

                                                          

[Bob Shanteau]

On 08/18/2011 05:29 PM, Serge Issakov wrote:
> Anyone else see this?
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1107_bill_20110218_introduced.html
>

Yes. The history on the leginfo.ca.gov web site says it has never been
heard in committee, so we on the CABO Leg Committee suspect that it is
intended as a bill to be gutted and replaced with something else
entirely. If no action is taken on the bill before the Legislature
adjourns for the year, it will die.

Bob Shanteau

[Alan Wachtel]

AB 1107 is a spot bill--a placeholder for later amendments on a possibly
unrelated subject. No action has been taken on it since its
introduction. It remains alive for the second year of the two-year
session, though it will only be allowed a few weeks in January to pass
out of its first committee.

~ Alan

[David Whiteman]

For the benefit of the one person on here who does not understand how the California legislature work... Why does the Assembly need spot bill?  If someone wants to write a new bill, why can't start with a new bill, instead of deleting what a spot bill says and amend it with something else?

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Alan Wachtel <Wac...@aol.com> wrote:

AB 1107 is a spot bill--a placeholder for later amendments on a possibly unrelated subject. No action has been taken on it since its introduction. It remains alive for the second year of the two-year session, though it will only be allowed a few weeks in January to pass out of its first committee.

~ Alan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

[Alan Wachtel]

David Whiteman wrote:
> For the benefit of the one person on here who does not understand how
> the California legislature work... Why does the Assembly need spot
> bill? If someone wants to write a new bill, why can't start with a
> new bill, instead of deleting what a spot bill says and amend it with
> something else?

The last day legislators are allowed to introduce bills is in
mid-February. Spot bills let them keep their options open.

~ Alan

[Trevor Bourget]

I spoke with Nick Pappas, the legislative aid for Assemblyman Fletcher's office, since he represents my district. Both Nick and Nate are bicycle riders (Nate is an ironman triathlete).

I asked the intent of the bill and was told "they're looking for ideas". I mentioned two ideas that are good extremes:

1. Don't touch it, because unless there is a huge upside the most likely result of any change would be something worse. I mentioned the history, that these two codes 21202+21208 are the result of some expert cyclists and have served us well for 40 years. I also pointed out it is linked to 21202 and both should be changed if either is.

2. Eliminate it, which would probably require modifying the slow vehicle rule in some way; equally or more dangerous, and not likely to succeed in today's climate.

I pointed him to mr roadshow where he could see good example of how motorists really think about cyclists.

I started to discuss the prokop case with him, because I think a useful change would be to the government code to say that any class 1 bikeway intended primarily for transportation use is not a trail. 

In order to pass in current fiscal climate, a probable restriction would be to have the bikeway included in an approved bike master plan for the responsible agency, although having Caltrans constructed paths included automatically would be very desirable. Nick didn't know what a class 1 bikeway was and when I explained the concept of separated "bike highway" he said "oh, like a rails to trails". I pointed out that Caltrans builds what amount to mandated sidepaths (when no other reasonable route exists). We have to be careful, in my opinion, to NOT require that recreational trails be required to be maintained under street standards. Actually I think the right legislation would declare that certain class 1 bikeways could be included into the local agency's highway map as a "non-motorized highway", because I would also like vehicle code to apply to them.

Feel free to respond to this thread with any ideas of how 21202+21208 could actually be improved, again considering that the upside had better be worth the risk of opening the pandora box. I will be continuing the discussion with their office in the next week. I'll probably direct them here also.

btw he asked my opinion about 3-foot passing law, and I told him I think it would have little to no effect either on motorist behavior or traffic citations. What we need is more education in both camps, such as by enticing motorists to ride a bike for transportation at least once a year (half off motor vehicle registration if the ride is verified by certified cycling instructor?).

-- trevor

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.