It’s a proposal we’ve endorsed as part of a powerful coalition whose members agree that we need to transform our communities for sustainable transportation. The right investments will create “bicycle habitat” where affordable housing and jobs are more accessible and where multiple transportation choices reduce car trips.  We need to show state leaders that Californians expect them to take advantage of this incredible opportunity!

We need to show that those in Sacramento for the Transportation Choices Summit are just the tip of the iceberg. They represent hundreds of thousands of others: rural residents waiting hours between infrequent buses; children who have to dodge high-speed traffic just to walk around their neighborhoods; and working families who face a no-win tradeoff between unaffordable housing and long, expensive commutes.

Can you click here and sign right now, so we can show legislators the huge support for walking, biking, public transportation, and affordable housing near transit?

Your help is critical to building the strong statewide movement we need to transform transportation in California. Thank you for taking action today.

AB 1193 builds on last year’s AB 819 which required Caltrans to develop an experimental process for cycle tracks and other non-approved designs. In response, they propose to give local agencies the authority to approve exceptions to the HDM on their own. This process meets our goal of making it easy for local agencies to build cycle tracks.

AB 1193 ensures that Caltrans follows through on their proposal and that the process works for local agencies. The legislature needs to hear from you! Please send a letter. You can use this sample letter, or research the bill on the government’s site and our own page and compose your own letter.

Send your letter in an email to Misa Yokoi-Shelton by Friday, April 19.

Thanks!

The Vulnerable Road Users Ordinance is the brainchild of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. Modeled off the Bicyclist Anti-Harassment Ordinance first adopted in Los Angeles and later by Berkeley and Sunnyvale, the Sonoma ordinance was amended to cover pedestrians. Their “Protect Us All” campaign has the goal of getting the Vulnerable Road Users Ordinance adopted in every Sonoma County city as well as for unincorporated county.

They already have success; Sebastapol adopted the ordinance in December. The City of Healdsburg is currently considering a version of the ordinance as well.

While bike license registration was meant to provide police with a bicycle registry for returning stolen bikes, in practice, participation has never been high. Instead, police have sometimes used the licensing requirement as a catch-all for harassing bicyclists.  What’s more, the fees brought in for licensing don’t even pay for the staff time needed to process the submitted forms. In the City of San Diego, the annual revenue brought in from bicycle licensing was a whopping $260.

Removal of mandatory registration requirements is one of those small but necessary steps needed to encourage bicycling in California.  We applaud the City of San Diego’s recent action, and hope their good example spreads to the California cities that have yet to ditch their license registration requirement.

The law grants the immunity regardless of whether the bicyclist was in the bike lane or lawfully outside the bike lane, whether a dangerous condition existed on the roadway or bike lane, or if either was improperly designed.  

For example, if a city mayor or treasurer were to hit a bicyclist on a roadway where a bike lane has been provided, they or their public-entity employer would be immune from liability regarding injury sustained by the bicyclist, even if the bicycle rider hit a hazard improperly left in the bike lane by city workers or if the bike lane were designed dangerously. Additionally, in the above example, if the bicyclist had lawfully left the bike lane to avoid debris or a hazardous condition (Vehicle Code § 21208(a)(3)) when hit, no liability would be imposed on the city or its elected official.

Existing law already provides a degree of governmental tort immunity in Government Code § 815 et. seq.  This bill would expand those immunities.

By introducing this legislation the author intends to prevent lawsuits against cities, and their elected officials, regarding roadways where a bike lane has been provided by that city for the purpose of protecting its citizens.  Lawsuits involving a public roadway often include a named public entity or elected official as a defendant due to the potential dangerous condition of the roadway, or failure to properly design and build the roadway. She claims that this bill is meant to serve as an incentive for cities to expand or increase their bike lanes. However, by removing liability city officials could design dangerous bike facilities to pretend they’re helping bicycling without any legal incentive to do better.

Because elected officials are considered employees of the public entities under which the serve, the bill would conflict with or negate Government Code § 815.2(a). This section states, “A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.”

The proposed numbering (§ 830.10) of this legislation is misplaced. The language of the bill would be contained in the section of the Government Code regarding public entity or public employee liability (section 814 et. seq.) under  “Dangerous Conditions of Public Property.” However this bill does not address a situation where a dangerous condition exists on the roadway or bike lane and in fact causes injury. Instead the bill provides immunity for a public entity or its elected official in such circumstances. The bill only states a “temporary, unsafe condition” of a roadway or bike lane must be addressed in a “timely fashion.” 

The bill would also conflict with or negate the requirements of Streets and Highway Code § 890.6, which establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. If a public entity or employee cannot be held liable, under any circumstances, if a bicyclist is injured on a roadway where a bike lane has been provided, there would be less adherence to the minimum safety design criteria for bike lanes.

Analysis Prepared by:  Heath Langle, Esq., legal volunteer for CalBike

Please sign this petition to join the campaign against AB 738.

We have huge problems with the language in the trailer bill. Our top four concerns are below.

1. The amount is less than it should be (it’s basically status quo).
2. A loophole big enough for an electric freight train to power through allows any project that reduces greenhouse gas emissions to be funded from this account.
3. Safe Routes to School and Rec Trails programs are not explicitly preserved.
4. Existing programs are canceled before this one is created, creating a gap in funding active transportation projects.

To add your name to the list of Californians who insist on an effective program to promote bicycling, sign our petition!

We are working to shape the new program into a positive one for bicycling, with the demands on this petition. Please sign it today! Deadline is Jan. 28.

All of this critical meeting followed the decision by the U.S. Congress to kill most of the dedicated funding for bicycling and walking in the new federal transportation bill, MAP-21. Under the new bill, California could legally just stop funding bicycle safety and mobility improvements. They won’t, however, thanks to you and the rest of the organized California bicycling movement. But the state is enacting big changes that could make our situation worse, or much, much better. Now is the time to get involved to keep the pressure on the Governor and the Legislature.

The BTH is circulating a draft proposal to create a new fund called the “Active Transportation Account” (AcTA), which funds bicycling and walking at 92% of previous levels. That’s worse. It could, however, have narrower criteria compared to previous years, improving the prospects of funding bicycling and walking. That’s better. In future years, the Active Transportation Account could be the recipient of significant funding from cap & trade revenues or other revenues the Legislature devises.

Right now, we’re working to ensure that bicycling and walking receive the same level of funding as in previous years. According to our lobbyist at Platinum Advisors, BTH chief Brian Kelly likes to reach a consensus before proposals are even released, so our involvement already is critical.

Once the Governor’s proposal is released in January, we’ll have only a few months to exert our influence before the Legislature approves it. You can help by making a donation to CalBike today. Your funding will go directly to organizing in the districts whose Assemblymembers and Senators sit on the budget committees. Your dollars will be translated into state dollars for bicycle infrastructure. Donate today.

Why would a bicycle advocacy group oppose Proposition 33, an automobile insurance initiative?

Because if Proposition 33 passes, those of us who have found a way to avoid car insurance costs would be punished by paying higher rates if we choose to own and insure a car again. That’s precisely the wrong policy to enact when so many Californians are discovering that our streets are getting safer and that the bicycle is actually a practical and joyous way to get around. Some of us have found biking, walking, transit, and the occasional rental car to be so practical that we’ve sold our private cars. That’s a huge economic benefit: the money we would otherwise spend on cars goes into our local economy, creates local jobs, and helps our own pocketbook.

Prop 33 would let insurers surcharge Californians if they didn’t have car insurance for more than 90 days at any time in the last five years, even if they have a perfect driving record. That hurts everyone who rides a bike, walks, or uses public transit to get around, but whose life circumstances change and have no choice but to get back into an automobile.

The California Bicycle Coalition is working hard to make it easy, safe, and fun for people to ride bicycles, and we’re succeeding. Bicycling is booming, and our communities are safer, healthier, and more livable places because of it. We would like to be able to tell people that bicycling will save you money on car insurance, but if Prop 33 passes, we won’t be able to say that.

It’s unfair to penalize people for not owning a car. It hurts college students who commonly don’t have a car, contrary to the misleading advertising from the measure’s proponents. It penalizes those who choose a low-impact lifestyle. Most of all, it hurts those who are least able to pay.

Prop 33 is an insurance industry scam masquerading as something to help people. In fact it does just the opposite. Vote No on Prop 33.

Learn more.