Re: [SDCBC Advocacy] Re: Blakespear has pulled the SB 1216? Don't Think So!: Opposing CA Senator Catherine Blakespear's SB1216: No Sharrows and No Class III Bikeways on Streets / Roads Above 30+mph

[Jim Baross]

Thanks, Daniel G,

More outreach may help! We still have a democracy. Use it.

Note, though, that the SDCBC is not presently opposing the bills.

[Per Pete Penseyres, "BTW: I apologize for confusing the issue of SB 1216 being pulled. It has not been pulled by Senator Blakespear and continues winding its way through the legislative process."

On behalf of CABO, we have met with the legislative staff of both bills, with CalBike, and with legislature's staff as well. Amendments were made. More needs to be done, or we may be left with only appeals to the Governor.

This fight is not an insignificant funding source difference of opinion among bike/transportation advocates. 

Some of us want to protect and expand our/your right, choice, and ability to ride everywhere, from anywhere, and at any time: roads, paths, Bikeways, cycletracks, etc. We are bicyclists who seek to improve the Shared use of public roads. To protect bicycling we have to ward off bills that don't.

Until well-designed and effectively functioning separated Bikeways connect all destinations, "Roads must be for people, not just for people in cars." (Reworking my slogan)

Jim Baross

CABO President

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, 9:06 PM Daniel G <gayt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All: 

Everyone here has shared some great points and I can tell there is a lot of passion behind this issue. I am wondering if anyone has reached out to Blakespear’s office to share their perspective. While it’s great to use this email thread to communicate each other’s points of view, it will not change the outcome of the bill by keeping it in this thread.

If there is interest, I can easily help set up a meeting with her staff to discuss this bill. There will, however, need to be a few talking points that everyone can agree on in order to present a united front on behalf of the SDCBC. 

Daniel Gaytan

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:19 PM David Nichols <purples...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Like Ted, I have also been lurking here. Very good thoughts from all... Here's a couple more:

Rated routes/sharrows is pure brilliance. Skiing, hiking, surfing all do it. A simple 2' colored dot could be added to any sharrowed marking. I'm not sure about the red for advanced, as that is the universal sign for stop and may be construed as "don't take the lane here". I better like the skiing model of green, blue and diamond/double diamond.

Agree with Ted on substandard lanes, would add wording regarding "if a double yellow center line exists" specifically on roadways with one travel lane in each direction.

We do have "Complete Streets", which are followed when governments want to. For ADA compliance, if any work is done on any part of anything, it's mandatory or you get sued... Just a thought.

To my knowledge, Large lettering BIKES MAY USE FULL LANE on the roadway, like in Encinitas & Oceanside, are not MUTCD approved. Let's keep pushing for the next update that they are and kudos to Abe whoever got it done in Oceanside, for seeing a need and doing it.

The issue with 1216 is not the limiting of sharrows over 30mph, I too am leery of riding on 35mph roadways with sharrows. It's the limiting of sharrows on roadways too narrow to share, or those with no alternative. Education is the key and if they are not there, motorists and cyclists alike who don't know what they mean, never will. As I have already stated, this bill is backwards, it should state: "Any roadway insufficient in width to safely share with a bicycle (14ft), is to be limited to 30mph with sharrows required”. 

Just my thoughts, thanks to all for yours,

David Nichols

Cyclo-Vets President

purples...@hotmail.com

619-461-8773

---

From: Ted Rogers <bikin...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 5:09 PM
To: Pete Penseyres <cyclo...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Frank J. Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com>; Frederick Dudek <fmd...@gmail.com>; karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com>; Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com>; Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com>; Phillip Young <you...@icloud.com>; CABO directors <cab...@googlegroups.com>; David Nichols <purples...@hotmail.com>; Kristine Schindler <kristines...@gmail.com>; Myles Pomeroy Sierra Club <mpom...@san.rr.com>; Paul Krueger <pwk...@gmail.com>; SDCBC Advocacy Committee <sdcbc-a...@googlegroups.com>; SDCBC_Council_of_Bicycle_Clubs <sdcbc_council_o...@googlegroups.com>; Richard Duquette <rlduq...@911law.com>; Linda Webb <lwe...@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Blakespear has pulled the SB 1216? Don't Think So!: Opposing CA Senator Catherine Blakespear's SB1216: No Sharrows and No Class III Bikeways on Streets / Roads Above 30+mph

 

I would be more supportive of sharrows if they were placed on every street with a substandard right lane, or if the BMUFL wording were place on every block on every street. As you’ve no doubt heard before from others, one major complaint is that while sharrows may tell the drivers who know what they are that bike riders can take the full lane, it also suggests to many — including some cops — that bikes are not allowed to take the lane on the nearly identical right lane a few blocks over, which we all know isn’t true. 

As to how to educate drivers, I honestly have no idea, because nothing has worked so far. Public service messaging hasn’t worked, the “Every Lane Is A Bike Lane” campaign hasn’t worked, making it part of the driving manual hasn’t worked. I’ve done my best to get the message out, but I’m largely preaching to the choir. 

On Jul 11, 2024, at 4:29 PM, Pete Penseyres <cyclo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BMUFL wording on the pavement has also been repeated in Oceanside on Coast Highway on all segments without Bike Lanes. The sharrows aren't green and the original painted words quickly faded. The plan is to replace them with thermoplastic as has been done Northbound just North of Oceanside Blvd after that segment was repaved. Cost of thermoplastic is an issue. The words on the road are an essential part of understanding the meaning of the sharrows and the practically "invisible" signs with those words on the right side that are off the roadway.

BTW: I apologize for confusing the issue of SB 1216 being pulled. It has not been pulled by Senator Blakespear and continues winding its way through the legislative process.

Pete Penseyres

League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #2020

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 15:23, Ted Rogers <bikin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unfortunately, I’ve heard from a number of bicyclists who have dealt with road rage on streets with sharrows, and continue to encounter people online and on my site — bicyclists and drivers alike — who don’t know what they are, or that they do imply the presence of bicycles. I know they should mean that to everyone, but that doesn’t seem to be the case at this time. 

Serge, I think most people assume when they see a bike route that it will be safe and comfortable for anyone, or it wouldn’t be there. I know I learned the hard way when I move to California back in the 90s that was not necessarily so. 

I’ve also ridden the sharrows on Fountain Ave in West Hollywood, where the speed limit is 35 and most drivers go 10 to 15 mph higher when conditions allow, It is a very unpleasant street to ride, sharrows or otherwise, and most people only do it once. I think the presence of sharrows there actually discourages its use for more people, once they try it. And many never try because of that.

On Jul 11, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Frederick Dudek <fmd...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think sharrows are more useful for motorists, than for cyclists.  They make motorists aware that cyclists may be present and encourage them to change lanes when passing cyclists.  I represented many injured cyclists and the at-fault drivers normally said some version of “I did not know they were there”.  I also never experienced “road rage” from a motorist, while cycling on a road with sharrows.

Frederick Dudek

fmd...@gmail.com

619 379-4068

On Jul 11, 2024, at 1:44 PM, Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

All - That is the StreetsForAll claim ... that sharrow lure the unskilled or inexperienced into a dangerous position. What is the evidence of that? For that matter, why is it so important to lower 35 mph limit down to 30 mph? Where is the data that says putting sharrows on a roadway with 35 mph speeds is inherently more dangerous than those with 30mph speeds? There is a lot of quibbling and time and resources spent over a mere 5mph. If there's a problem with unskilled people venturing out into traffic, the answer lies with education, not removing signage which is just as useful to motorists as it is to cyclists to know what to expect for proper safe behavior.

-- Karl

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 1:35 PM Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting idea. Might help parents of and less experienced people choose their routes, but what skill is required to use a lane that is marked with Sharrows that isn't valuable on an otherwise unmarked lane?

Arguably motorists awareness and preparation for the presence of bicyclists is heightened with Sharrows, right?

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, 1:12 PM Ted Rogers <bikin...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’ve been lurking here, because I take the contrary view that sharrows don’t belong on high speed streets because they encourage inexperienced people to ride beyond their skill level. But what if there were different levels of sharrows and bike routes to indicate the level of skill required or the comfort level for riders? Say green for slow speed/low traffic streets, yellow for more challenging streets, and red for higher speed bike routes requiring a greater level of skill?

Would that be a reasonable compromise that accommodates everyone?

Ted

On Jul 11, 2024, at 6:23 AM, Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

Note that the current version of SBf 1216 as of July 3rd adds an exception to allow Class III bike route designation and/or use of sharrows, even though the addition :891.9 strictly prohibits their use - a contradiction which would seem to make this bill a mess in enforcement.

(C) The project applicant demonstrates that the use of the Class III bikeway or marking is appropriate for the local community context and advances a lower stress environment or a low-stress network

It may be that both StreetsForAll and Blakespear find that unacceptable, although the criteria for "advances a lower stress network" is vague and not well-defined imo. StreetsForAll has definitely dropped support, but we still must confirm to see if the bill is actually pulled. 

At any rate, any organization who has previously supported or opposed this bill will also have to re-evaluate their position based on the latest version, which seems to get messier all the time.

-- Karl

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 11:00 PM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

If she pulled the bill today that won’t be reflected on the website for a few days. 

Serge

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 7:58 PM Phillip Young <you...@icloud.com> wrote:

Karl,

It appears SB 1216 on 7/1/24 moved along: "Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]”.

On 7/3/24 SB 1216 got a second reading, amended, and passed on to the Committee on [Appropriations].

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1216

Looks to me SB 1216 is moving along to an eventual vote and most likely passage. Don’t see Senator Blakespear pulling the bill. 

See the note below from Jim Baross about SB 2290 prohibiting road marking on roads having 25+mph speed limits. 

Phil 

<Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 7.01.05 PM.png>

<Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 7.02.08 PM.png>

PS: Jim Baross sent me a note that SB 2290 related to Class III Bikeways prohibiting road markings (sharrow) on roads with speed limits set at 25+mph:

Don't overlook AB 2290!
From AB 2290
This bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2026, the commission from adding a project that creates a Class III bikeway or adds a specific road marking used to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane to the program of projects, unless the bikeway or road marking is on a highway with a design speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less or the project will implement improvements to reduce the design speed limit to 25 miles per hour or less.
This Bill passed the Assembly and is in the Senate "suspense" file.

<Screenshot 2024-07-10 at 7.16.00 PM.png>

On Jul 10, 2024, at 6:31 PM, Karl Rudnick <rudnick...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pete Penseyres just informed me that the Oceanside City Attorney, who has also sent in a letter of opposition to SB 1216 says that Blakespear has pulled the bill for this year. I think it has been amended too many times for her satisfaction, so she just pulled it with a promise to bring it back better later. It would be good if someone can confirm this is true so we don't have to waste any more time on this nonsense.
-- Karl

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:22 PM Phillip Young <you...@icloud.com> wrote:
Hi Ted,    https://bikinginla.com/

Would you please encourage your Biking in LA readers to oppose SB1216?

Write your State Senators and Assembly Representative
Please find out who your State Senators are and who your Assembly Representative is. Write to them to oppose SB1216!

https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/


Bill Text: CA SB1216 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Transportation projects: Class III bikeways: prohibition.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1216/id/2930727




Quotes Opposing CA Senator Catherine Blakespear's SB1216: 
Misguided Legislation Imposing No Sharrows and No Class III Bikeways on Streets / Roads Above 30+mph 

If Safety In Cycling Were At The Forefront - SB1216 Would Not Be The Answer by David Nichols
"This bill, simply put, points out the author’s acceptance of our car centric society. It’s backwards. If safety in cycling were at the forefront, it would state “any roadway insufficient in width to safely share with a bicycle (14ft), is to be limited to 30mph & have sharrows required”. If only roads with true “Complete Streets” consisting of ample bikeways were allowed to be over 30, governments would make the needed changes for the safety of all.”

Sharrows Discourage Motorists From Putting on the Squeeze by Frederick Dudek

"Well-marked sharrows, including “bikes may use full lane” explanations, are extremely helpful to both motorists and cyclists.  They encourage motorists to change lanes while passing cyclists and inform them that cyclists are obeying the law (hopefully, reducing the “road rage” cyclists sometimes experience).  They encourage cyclists to use correct “lane positioning” and select the safest place to ride.  Importantly, they also discourage motorists and cyclists from attempting to “squeeze together” when the roadway is too narrow to share, as anticipated by CA Vehicle Code 21202(a)(3).  Forcing experienced, faster cyclists onto protected bike trails, with inexperienced, slower riders risks increased accidents between the two very different types of road users.  This danger is exacerbated by the increased use of heavier, high speed (up to 28 mph) e-bikes, often operated by inexperienced (and frequently “cell phone distracted”) riders.”

Make Existing Roads Less Bike Friendly by Serge Issakov
"I’m deeply troubled by SB1216 because it’s throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Sharrows are absolutely essential for informing ignorant motorists about cyclists rights to use the full lane, and this is especially important on 35+ mph roads like the coast highway in Cardiff where there is an adjacent bikeway. Motorists don’t know the bikeway doesn’t safely accommodate speeds that are typical for cyclists traveling for transportation or fitness. Without the presence of sharrows they think people on bikes in the road are doing something wrong and feel emboldened to teach them a lesson. 
I understand the goal to encourage municipalities to do more, but often there is simply inefficient room to allocate separate space for cyclists, and that’s often the case on main arterials with speed limits above 30 mph. In these situations sharrows are an invaluable tool for traffic engineers to use to inform cyclists as well as motorists and law enforcement that cycling on the road is allowed, and a conspicuous position in the lane is encouraged for safety (which tells motorists to change lanes to pass). 
Creating bike friendly infrastructure is essential, but let’s not make existing roads less bike friendly, which eliminating sharrows on 30+ mph roads would do.”

More Flawed Bike Lane Thinking - SB1216 by Phil Young

"Senator Blakespear is doubling down on flawed bicycling infrastructure design, directly causing more cyclists’ injuries and even deaths. She is a slow learner even after doing the Cardiff 101 protected Cycle Track disaster. 
Some people can only see the beauty of the imaginary ideal and are blinded without any consideration on what happens in the real world to our detriment. 
SB216 ties the hands of traffic engineers forcing bike lane designs to be more dangerous."

Thank you,
Phil