Recent bicycle-related bills in the California Legislature
Alan Wachtel
Friday was the deadline for introducing bills into the current
session of the California Legislature. Here are a few of interest:
AB
1774 (Dixon): Prohibits selling a device to modify the speed
capability of an e-bike so it no longer fits the definition of
e-bike.
AB
1778 (Connolly): Prohibits a person under 16 from operating
a class 2 e-bike. Requires helmets for class 2.
AB
2234 (Boerner): Prohibits a person under 12 from operating
an e-bike. Requires driver’s license or training program for all
classes of e-bike.
AB
2259 (Boerner): Bicycle safety handbook. Similar to
Boerner's AB 1188 of last year, which stalled because of projected
printing and distribution costs. This version would be electronic
only.
AB
2290 (Friedman): Among other provisions, prohibits
allocation of Active Transportation Program funds to create Class
III bikeway unless the project is on a residential street with a
posted speed limit of 20 mi/h or less (i.e., almost nowhere). (See
also SB 1216 below.) Sponsored by CalBike.
AB
2669 (Ting): Prohibits a toll from being imposed on the
passage of a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal micromobility device
over toll bridges.
SB 1216 (Blakespear): No agency shall install or restripe a Class III bikeway on a highway that has a posted speed limit greater than 30 mi/h. (See also AB 2290 above).
(Class III bikeways are not striped.) What is this sudden animus
against Class III bike routes? The Highway Design Manual says that
Class III bikeways can provide continuity or designate preferred
routes, and should be selected and maintained to ensure that
they're suitable, e.g. by: "elimination of parking or increased
roadway width, elimination of surface irregularities and roadway
obstacles, frequent street sweeping, established intersection
priority on the bike route street as compared with the majority of
cross streets, and installation of bicycle-sensitive loop
detectors at signalized intersections [which should always be done
anyway]." That doesn't seem like an option that should be so
highly restricted.
AB
2744 (McCarty): I'm having a lot of trouble making sense of
this one. It contains a number of provisions dealing with
intersections and signals, but here are the most puzzling ones (as
described in the Legislative Counsel's Digest):
This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2025, prohibit the addition of a right-turn or travel lane within 20 feet of a marked or unmarked crosswalk where there is not already a dedicated and marked right-turn or travel lane, and would prohibit vehicles from using this 20-foot area for right turns unless the area is already marked as a dedicated right-turn lane before January 1, 2025. . . .
This bill would also authorize a local authority to install a bicycle lane within 20 feet of a crosswalk.
No idea what this means for right turns. And for the next part
I'm going to quote the language of the bill itself (deletions in strikeout
type, additions in italics):
21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle
lane established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as
follows:
(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a right turn within a distance of 200 feet from
the intersection. intersection only if the
right turn is from an exclusive right-turn lane.
(b) For purposes of this section, “bicycle lane” means a Class
I, II, or IV bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets
and Highways Code.
So (ignoring one-way streets that have left-side bike lanes) you
can merge into a bike lane before turning right--if what? If the
adjacent lane is right-turn-only? (The CA MUTCD says to not even
stripe bike lanes to the right of RTO lanes.) If the bike lane
itself is RTO? But you can't merge if it's a combined
right-through lane--you just right-hook bicyclists? And when you
do merge, "bike lane," contrary to every other definition, now
also includes bike paths and cycle tracks, and you somehow merge
into those? This bill is also sponsored by CalBike. Opinions
welcome.
~ Alan
Michael Graff
David Whiteman
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/8207f225-ceb3-4156-8cc9-ab1165dde78c%40gmail.com.
Alan Wachtel
With regards to AB1774 (Dixon) does it also apply to selling a device that converts a class 1 or class 2 e-bike to class 3? What about software for that purpose?
The Legislative Counsel's Digest explains that "Existing law prohibits a person from tampering with or modifying an electric bicycle so as to change the speed capability of the bicycle, unless they appropriately replace the label indicating the classification required." So converting Class 1 or Class 2 to Class 3 is already and would continue to be permitted, as long as the label is updated accordingly. The terms "tamper with or modify" would seem to include software as well as hardware.
But existing law leaves a loophole: someone might soup up an
e-bike so it no longer meets the definition of an e-bike. The bill
fills that loophole by making it illegal to change the speed
capability of an e-bike if it doesn't then qualify as an e-bike.
The bill also makes it illegal to sell a product or device that
can modify the speed capability of an e-bike so it's no longer an
e-bike. "Product or device" would also seem to include software.
~ Alan
William Sellin
Infrastructure Review Committee
Pete Van Nuys • Bill Sellin • Brian Cox • Rock Kendall, Esq.
OCBike.org
William Sellin
Infrastructure Review Committee
Pete Van Nuys • Bill Sellin • Brian Cox • Rock Kendall, Esq.
OCBike.org
On Feb 18, 2024, at 1:15 PM, David Whiteman <magicd...@gmail.com> wrote:
AB 2290 (Friedman): Among other provisions, prohibits allocation of Active Transportation Program funds to create Class III bikeway unless the project is on a residential street with a posted speed limit of 20 mi/h or less (i.e., almost nowhere). (See also SB 1216 below.) Sponsored by CalBike.
SB 1216 (Blakespear): No agency shall install or restripe a Class III bikeway on a highway that has a posted speed limit greater than 30 mi/h. (See also AB 2290 above).
John F. Hess
(1) To park where parking is permitted. <end paste>
Alan Wachtel
It is my understanding that it is legal to park in a bike lane and block it unless the local agency has prohibited parking at that location. For me some friends, that's just a head scratcher. Why should it be legal to park and block a bike lane? It's not legal to park and block a "normal" traffic lane*. In Davis, some of this is because parking on the street is "valuable" and bicycle traffic is low, so The interference to cycling is not an issue.
Is my understanding correct or can anyone point to a CVC or MUTCD instruction prohibiting parking in a bike lane?
In fact it isn't always illegal to park in a bike lane, because
California design standards allow for wide bike lanes where
parking is permitted along the curb, even without any special
parking stripe, stalls, or tees. Although HDM Figure 302.1A does
distinguish between the bicycle travel portion and the parking
portion of a wide bike lane, the CA MUTCD considers a solid white
line on the right side of the bicycle travel portion to be
optional (Figure 9C-102(CA)). To give drivers notice whether a
bike lane allows parking, narrow bike lanes require "No Parking"
signs.
Vehicle Code §21211(b) prohibits parking on any class I bikeway
or any other public or private bicycle path or trail. It was
enacted in 1987 to deal with fishermen who were parking on, and
fishing from, a bike path on the San Gabriel River. Though its
language is not absolutely clear, it does not appear to prohibit
parking in bike lanes. AB 2744, among its provisions, would amend
this section to apply the prohibition to any Class I, II, or IV
bikeway, with limited exceptions. However, it doesn't seem to take
into account the possible variation in bike lane widths.
~ Alan
Bill SELLIN
On Feb 19, 2024, at 10:26 AM, 'Alan Wachtel' via CABOforum <cabo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/74298c03-4486-4ffc-8780-51c2d9814503%40aol.com.
Michael Graff
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/67A56E64-2E6E-4F69-8B6C-739F1E8F24DC%40sellin.com.
Bob Shanteau
Search for '21209' in https://drive.google.com/file/d/1naoCYnms3FLE3uTL3yZqwsrqBB7umAeS/view?usp=drive_link
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CANe0fGXNSKk7ZN8Rui8kM6UwBdyaHxinXmjnQXOr8duUN-FXVQ%40mail.gmail.com.
John Cinatl
Bikeway Classifications in California (See Also CVC 21209)
890.4. As used in this article, "bikeway" means all facilities that provide primarily for, and promote, bicycle travel. For purposes of this article, bikeways shall be categorized as follows:
(a) Bike Paths or Shared Use Paths, also referred to as "Class I Bikeways," which provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross-flows by motorists minimized.
(b) Bike Lanes, also referred to as "Class II Bikeways," which provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
(c) Bike Routes, also referred to as "Class III Bikeways," which provide a right-of-way on-street or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
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 on the web visit