For Immediate Release Contact: Dave Snyder, 916-251-9433, dave@calbike.org
Tuesday, August 31, 2021 Jared Sanchez, 714-262-0921, jared@calbike.org
Bicycle Safety Stop Bill Passes Senate
SACRAMENTO – On August 30, the California Senate passed the Bicycle Safety Stop Bill (AB 122, Boerner Horvath, Friedman, Ting) with a bipartisan 31-5 vote. The bill allows people on bikes to treat stop signs as yields, including giving the right of way to pedestrians. More than 75 organizations across the state signed a letter in support of the bill.
CalBike is thrilled that the Senate has shown its support for commonsense biking. A recent study in Delaware found that collisions involving bicycles at intersections decreased by 23% after the state made the safety stop legal. If the Bicycle Safety Stop Bill becomes law, California will join a long list of states that have implemented the safety stop: Idaho, Delaware, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Arkansas, Utah, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. None of those states have reported any safety problems after implementing this rule.
Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath, the bill’s original author said, “We know from the example of other states that when riders are allowed to yield at stop signs, they choose safer streets and will spend less time in dangerous intersections. It’s time for California to live up to its values and start encouraging — not penalizing — smart riding in our state.”
“Bicycling is good for California in so many ways: it improves our health, our economy, and our environment. We’re grateful to the thousands of Californians who encouraged their State Senators to remove this nonsensical obstacle to safe and reasonable biking,” said Dave Snyder, Executive Director of CalBike.
The Bicycle Safety Stop Bill doesn’t change existing right-of-way laws. People on bikes will still have to take their turn at intersections. AB 122 makes it legal for bike riders to slow down at intersections, wait for other traffic to clear, then proceed without coming to a full stop. It will improve predictability at intersections and mutual respect among road users. CalBike has created a video to explain how the bicycle safety stop works.
Unnecessary laws that are disregarded can become a pretext for unfair enforcement. CalBike hears complaints every year about punitive sting operations that have nothing to do with safety, and are sometimes used as a pretext to stop Black and Latinx people. These police interactions too often have tragic results.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/no-words-Stop-as-Yield_Graphic_3.jpg8161149Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2021-08-31 17:06:272021-09-15 18:51:32Bicycle Safety Stop Bill Passes Senate
The Freedom to Walk Act passed out of the California Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday. We’re thrilled lawmakers agreed that, as a state, we should stop raising revenue from our most marginalized and vulnerable residents.
Two more steps to legalize safe street crossings
There are two more crucial steps before we repeal unjust jaywalking laws, and we’ll need your help to get there.
First, the Freedom to Walk Act will need a majority vote on the Senate Floor in the next few weeks. The bill needs 21 votes to pass. Please email your California Senator today and ask them to vote YES to legalize safe walking.
Second, the bill needs Governor Newsom’s signature. If/when it passes the Senate, we’ll need help to let the governor know that Californians support ending unjust jaywalking laws.
Legitimate concerns about decriminalizing jaywalking
Nationally, pedestrian traffic deaths grew by 46% from 2010 to 2019, a much larger increase than all other vehicle-caused fatalities. The effects have fallen disproportionately on Black Americans, who now suffer a higher rate of pedestrian fatalities than other ethnic groups. It makes sense to be concerned about pedestrian safety and to hesitate to make any change that will make pedestrians more vulnerable.
However, there’s no reason to believe that jaywalking laws are preventing additional pedestrian deaths. Bloomberg CityLab reported that only 26% of severe pedestrian injuries occur during mid-block crossings. Another 25% of collisions involving pedestrians happen in crosswalks. And fully 50% of serious pedestrian crash injuries happen in other locations, including cars running up on the sidewalk and people hit while tending to their car by the side of the road.
“New data from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) projects that 2020 had the largest ever annual increase in the rate at which drivers struck and killed people on foot. What drove this surge? The likely culprits are dangerous driving like speeding, drunk and drugged driving, and distraction, which were rampant on U.S. roads during the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with infrastructure issues that have prioritized the movement of motor vehicles over walking and bicycling for many years.”
Pedestrians, like most road users, use self-interest to guide their actions. After all, running out into the street could have lethal consequences for someone on foot. And, while young children aren’t always capable of making good decisions about street crossings, what keeps them safe is parental supervision, not jaywalking laws.
Rising pedestrian injuries and fatalities are a legitimate concern that policymakers should address. But jaywalking laws aren’t the solution. California has enforced the existing jaywalking laws for the past 10 years while pedestrian fatalities soared. To protect people who walk, we must look at the true causes of the rising toll on pedestrians.
For example, it’s no accident that the upward trend in pedestrian deaths has matched the increase in popularity of SUVs. Higher front grills make them more lethal to people on foot, and increasingly tall front ends create large front blind spots. Testing and rating the crash safety of cars for people outside the vehicle as well as inside would be an excellent first step towards increasing pedestrian safety.
Chart created by Smart Growth America
In addition, as the GHSA noted, our built environment has for years prioritized the movement of motorized vehicles over the safety of people on foot and on bikes. Making pedestrian safety paramount in street repaving projects will do more to prevent pedestrian deaths than criminalizing walking on poorly-designed streets where jaywalking is sometimes the safest option.
Listen to the experts: people who walk
It’s critical to look at who stands on both sides of this issue. Local police departments and the CHP have exerted pressure against AB 1238. They witness the worst-case scenarios and that, along with the idea that enforcement and punishment keep people safe, shapes their view of jaywalking.
Police see the pedestrian under the influence who stepped into a busy street and got hit. They don’t see the much more common crossings that people make in every California community every day: people walking safely, taking the most logical routes to their destinations, often using a mid-block crossing to get where they need to go.
Jaywalking laws can’t prevent the tragedy of an impaired person making an unsafe crossing. And they don’t stop careless drivers from hitting pedestrians in crosswalks and on sidewalks, which is where two-thirds of accidents that involve pedestrians take place, according to our analysis of SWITRS crash data. In almost all of those collisions, the car driver is at fault.
Our lawmakers should listen to the voices of the people who walk every day and their advocates. They should listen to over 100 organizations that signed on in support of the Freedom to Walk Act, to the supporters of racial justice who understand that jaywalking laws have been and will continue to be a significant pretext for biased policing.
Police will claim that jaywalking laws cause people to walk in predictable patterns, which allows all users to share the road more safely. However, since the driver is at fault in most pedestrian fatalities, the safety conversation should focus on the behavior of car drivers, not people on foot.
Enforcement of jaywalking laws doesn’t deter mid-block crossings, but it does reinforce privilege because poor and Black people are much more likely to get ticketed and harassed.
Here’s a thought experiment: notice where you walk over the next few days. Do you always find a crosswalk or, when there’s no traffic, do you sometimes cross mid-block? Everybody jaywalks — and that probably includes you.
Better ways to protect pedestrians
CHP officers and local police witness firsthand the horrific results when a car hits a pedestrian at speed. Naturally, they want California laws to prevent as many devastating collisions as possible, so we can understand why some police organizations don’t want to see the Freedom to Walk Act become law.
However, if police, policymakers, and elected officials want to protect pedestrians from harm, there are much better ways to do that than jaywalking tickets. For example, they could support AB 43, which gives communities more options to lower speed limits. Reducing speed is one of the best ways to save lives: at 20 mph, a pedestrian has a 95% chance of surviving being hit by a car. At 40 mph, the survival rate is just 15%.
AB 1147 is another terrific pedestrian safety measure. The bill would change how planners write regional transportation plans, prioritizing alternative transportation options, including walking and biking. A 15-minute neighborhood is a community that gives people ways to walk safely to their local destinations.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/family-street-crossing-scaled.jpeg17092560Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2021-08-30 16:05:052021-08-31 15:06:02Bill to End Fines for Safe Street Crossings Moves to CA Senate Floor for Final Vote
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/i-voted-sticker-lot-1550340-scaled-e1583538108252.jpg6081996Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2021-08-27 20:24:222024-07-17 10:57:07Let’s Not Replace Newsom with Gruesome
CalBike: Jared Sanchez, jared@calbike.org | 714-262-0921
California Walks: Caro Jauregui, caro@calwalks.org | 562-320-2139
Los Angeles Walks: John Yi, john@losangeleswalks.org | 213-219-2483
Freedom to Walk Act Moves to Senate Floor Vote
SACRAMENTO – The Freedom to Walk Act, a bill designed to reform California’s “Jaywalking” laws, passed out of the California Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday, on a 5-2 vote.
The bill AB 1238, would make it legal for pedestrians in California to cross mid-block provided they don’t interfere with traffic. The bill was authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting of San Francisco. CalBike and a coalition of more than 85 groups and individuals support the repeal of jaywalking laws.
Jared Sanchez, CalBike Senior Policy Advocate said, “The State Senate and Governor now have a chance to advance racial justice by repealing jaywalking laws. In the absence of safe and accessible pedestrian infrastructure, residents do their best to access school, work, grocery stores, or parks. At times, this may involve jaywalking. Continuing to criminalize rational, predictable responses to poor infrastructure is unjust.”
The Bill would not change existing law that already requires pedestrians to avoid potentially hazardous situations on the roadway. Instead, it will protect vulnerable pedestrians against racially biased, pretextual policing; inequitable fees and fines; unnecessary, and potentially lethal, interactions with law enforcement.
By decriminalizing safe-street crossings, the bill will reduce unnecessary police enforcement of jaywalking. Enforcing low-level infractions, like jaywalking, can have a substantial cost for law enforcement. Given this, decriminalizing safe street crossings has the potential to conserve substantial resources for agencies across the state.
Punishing the Poor for Bad Street Design
Inequities in neighborhood design leave lower-income neighborhoods less pedestrian-friendly than others. Because of this, policing jaywalking often amounts to punishing people for the lack of government services and improper land use planning in their community. People should not be penalized for decades of infrastructure neglect and auto-first street design.
There is no evidence that jaywalking laws keep people safe. In fact, we know that these laws make many Californians unsafe by exposing them to pretextual policing and unnecessary encounters with law enforcement. California is in the process of reforming its laws regarding the use of public spaces. Several categories of infractions have already been eliminated in recent years at the state level, including vending without a permit and possession of marijuana. It’s time to add jaywalking to this list.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/jay-all-partners-sep21-update2-scaled.jpg13852560Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2021-08-27 19:55:232021-09-22 13:37:56Freedom to Walk Act Moves to Senate Floor Vote
Update, August 26, 2021: The Senate Appropriations Committee declined to take this bill out of the suspense file. Translation: AB 1401, which would have ended parking mandates in certain new construction, will not advance this year.
“Minimum parking requirements increase the supply and reduce the price – but not the cost – of parking. They bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of development, and thereby increase the prices of all the goods and services sold at the sites that offer free parking.”
How did so much parking get built in the first place?
These parking minimum regulations created abundant car parking, but that came with a considerable cost. Too much parking has been a disaster for California.
First, when communities make parking a car-is-easier than alternative transportation, people will drive — and drive, and drive.
Second, those parking minimums are a huge contributor to California’s housing crisis. Every parking spot adds tens of thousands of dollars to construction costs in a state where it’s already expensive to build housing. Worse still, a significant number of parking spots are unused.
San Diego, Oakland, and other California cities have eliminated minimum parking requirements for developments near transit. This is a smart move that will make housing more affordable and projects easier to build. However, some communities are clinging tightly to outdated, car-centric planning regulations. So a statewide law banning parking minimums in transit-rich areas is one of the best steps California can take to relieve its housing crunch.
Let’s house people, not cars
CalBike supports AB 1401 (Friedman), which would eliminate antiquated parking minimums in new buildings near transit. This would free up valuable transit-friendly areas for more housing.
Commuting to work, shop, and recreating without owning a car is easy in walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. But buildings with minimum parking requirements often tie each housing unit to a parking space, forcing people who don’t own cars to pay extra for an amenity they don’t need. Nationally, bundled garage parking costs renters $1,700 more per year.
At the press conference announcing the bill, Assemblymember Friedman said that her goals are to help California set policies that “prioritize and center human beings over cars; that prioritize people, housing, health, and the environment.”
Freedom of choice
By uncoupling parking and housing, we can reduce the cost of housing for car-free Californians. In cities where parking minimums have ended, you can now find places to live with parking available for an extra fee or without parking fees attached.
For example, at Berkeley’s Gaia Building, just 42 parking spaces serve 91 apartments. Residents who want a parking spot pay $230 per space per month. Car-free tenants don’t have to pay for parking. The result is a building that houses 237 adult residents and just 20 cars. That’s a win-win for housing and the climate.
Here’s how AB 1401 would work
The bill to end parking mandates would prohibit a state or local public agency from imposing minimum parking requirements on residential, commercial, or other developments if the building is within 1⁄2 mile of public transit and in a county with a population greater than 600,000. Just 15 of California’s 58 counties meet that criteria; however, those counties are home to more than three-quarters of the state’s population.
In counties with fewer than 600,000 residents, the minimum parking requirement would be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of transit for cities of 75,000 or more.
Minimum parking laws have been a recipe for high housing and building costs, adding to California’s housing crisis.It’s time to stop building excess parking in transit-rich neighborhoods. Ending parking mandates will help California address homelessness, traffic jams, dirty air, and the climate crisis.
What you can do to end parking mandates
AB 1401 has passed out of the Assembly and will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 26.
AB 1401 will let individuals decide whether they want to rent a home with parking or without. Sign CalBike’s petition to support developments without parking minimums[link].
And, if your California Senator is on the Appropriations Committee, please call or email them to ask them to support AB 1401 and an end to parking mandates.
California Senate Appropriations Committee Members:
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/parking-minimums-scaled.jpeg25601707Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2021-08-24 18:57:092021-08-31 18:18:38AB1401: Housing for People, Not Cars
Thanks to community organizing and popular demand, Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles could soon get a two-way, parking-separated bikeway. Sunset is a critical arterial street for East Hollywood, Silver Lake, and Echo Park. A safe connection on Sunset is essential to make these neighborhoods accessible to people on bikes. The impressive progress on this visionary project is the result of dedicated community organizing and an unusual strategy to convince the city to consider it.
Sunset4All starts with community engagement
Sunset4All is a community-led project that is fiscally sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. Organizers have spent years building support for the project, which will add amenities for people who take transit and walk as well as 3.2 miles of protected bike lanes.
“Right now people have to choose between driving or taking their life into their hands. Sunset4All would make it safe enough to walk, bike, roll, or take transit for short trips. It would also create safe routes to school and make the “main street” of our community a more pleasant place to walk, dine and shop,” said Sunset4All Co-Founder Terence Heuston. Heuston and Avital Shavit have been the powerhouse organizers behind Sunset4All.
Shavit and Heuston have enlisted more than 500 volunteers. Organizers have engaged with a wide variety of stakeholders, including bike leaders, local business owners, and ethnic communities. The proposal incorporates the important cultural history of the neighborhood, creating a cultural trail along the length of the bikeway. The result is a proposal with broad community support that will be hard for local elected officials to reject. This is key, because at least for now, in Los Angeles city council members have nearly complete authority over street design when it comes to bikeways.
CalBike ED Dave Snyder joins local leaders for Sunset Boulevard ride.
Putting the “civilian” in civil engineering
Sunset4All has one highly unusual strategy: raising money and commissioning the initial engineering plans for the street redesign. While it shouldn’t be a public responsibility to hire engineers to propose plans for projects like this, sometimes that’s what it takes to get past official inertia.
The strategy has its benefits because, during the fundraising process, you identify lots of supporters who care enough to chip in a few dollars. Community-funded engineering is a fantastic community organizing strategy.
“Teaming up with Sunset4All is the next step in a long collaboration with The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition since community leaders from our Central Neighborhood Bicycle Ambassador cohort first committed to close the existential gap in LA’s active transportation infrastructure along the Sunset and Santa Monica corridor,” said LACBC Executive Director Eli Akira Kaufman. “We are proud to serve a Sunset for all that is designed for and by Angelenos to transform Los Angeles into a more liveable region for everyone.”
CalBike is following this innovative project with admiration. If Sunset4All and LACBC succeed, their tactics could provide valuable lessons for other communities.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sunset-Render-20200204-scaled.jpg14772560Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2021-08-17 18:23:172021-08-17 18:25:03Sunset4All: A Big Step Forward for Biking in LA
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/800px-Gavin_Newsom_at_Netroots_Nation_2008_2728800028.jpg533800Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2021-08-16 18:49:282024-07-17 10:56:57California Cyclists: Vote NO in the Recall Election
CalBike’s $10 million E-Bike Affordability Program has been fully funded and is now in the planning stages. The program will give grants to help as many as 10,000 Californians buy e-bikes, starting in July 2022.
On Monday, CalBike Executive Director Dave Snyder and José Jimenez from Active San Gabriel Valley (Active SGV) met with the California Air Resources Board staff who are designing the program. Jimenez brought his experience administering a successful and popular e-bike program for Active SGV in 2017.
CARB staff noted that the July 1, 2022 deadline set by the legislature gives them an incredibly tight turnaround. They are working at an accelerated pace to develop a call for proposals to administer the program. But first, they must establish the parameters of that program and get it approved through the many layers of CARB bureaucracy. They were happy to learn of the groundwork we’ve laid.
CARB is planning its first public workgroup for the program on Monday, August 30. Click here to register.
Goals for making e-bikes affordable to more Californians
CalBike is working to make sure the program meets the goals we developed in collaboration with stakeholders from the environmental justice community, local community organizations like Active SGV, local public agencies like utility companies, and disparate sectors of the bike industry.
Help people replace car trips with e-bike trips.
Prioritize grants to individuals from low-income households.
Define eligibility for the program as individuals and households with incomes below the maximum limits established in the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.
Support related programs and benefits, such as safety education.
Provide support for a variety of electric bicycles, including, but not limited to, bicycles designed for people with disabilities; utility bikes for carrying equipment or passengers, including children; and folding e-bikes.
Support local small businesses and organizations, such as retail bicycle shops and nonprofit organizations, including community bicycle shops.
Collaborate with other state departments and agencies to enforce safeguards against fraudulent activity by sellers and purchasers of e-bikes in accordance with the law.
Ensure that e-bikes purchased through this program meet a high standard of quality and durability.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/edgerunner11i_03.jpeg791791Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2021-08-16 18:02:552021-08-16 18:02:57CalBike Works with CA Air Resources Board to Develop E-Bike Grant Program
This year, CalBike is sponsoring the Freedom to Walk Act(AB 1238, Ting), which will take jaywalking laws off the books in California. We realize that people have questions about why this legislation is critical for equity, justice, and accessibility. In partnership with the bill’s other co-sponsors, California Walks and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, we answer the most common questions about the Freedom to Walk Act.
Why do we need to reform the way pedestrians cross the street?
Safe walking should not be criminalized.
Jaywalking laws lead to unjust enforcement and burdensome fines and fees.
Jaywalking laws give rise to pretextual policing.
Pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate, especially in low-income communities and communities of color. Jaywalking rules tend to punish people for what is actually a collective failure to invest in our neighborhoods.
Won’t removing jaywalking laws make the streets less safe for pedestrians?
No. In fact, removing jaywalking laws will make it safer for pedestrians, especially Black, brown, and low-income pedestrians, by ending unnecessary police encounters that can lead to police brutality.1
People will still be prohibited from crossing the street in reckless or hazardous ways.
Most crashes involving pedestrians are due to drivers violating traffic laws.
Even if jaywalking were unsafe (in almost all cases, it is not), tickets and fines have no deterrent effect, so getting rid of them won’t increase jaywalking.
How will decriminalizing jaywalking affect the safety of children and the elderly?
Children under 13 are typically supervised by an adult when crossing the street. This bill will not affect the guardian’s responsibility to ensure that children cross the road safely.
California empowers teenagers to make decisions far more complex than how to cross the street. If we can trust teenagers can drive, we can trust them to assess when crossing the road will be an immediate hazard. Like anyone else, if they do not exercise good judgment, they will be subject to citation.
This bill will increase the safety of Black and brown youth, who are often targeted by police for jaywalking.2
The elderly are just as rational and logical as any other adult. Regardless of the Freedom to Walk Act, they will choose to cross the street only when they conclude that it is safe for them to do so.
1 See, for instance, the tragic death of two Black pedestrians in 2018 and 2020, Chinedu Okobi and Kurt Reinhold.
2 See, for example, this account of police officers in Kern County using jaywalking laws as a pretext to stop, harass, and attack four high-school students.
Why should California change pedestrian traffic laws and not similar laws for motorists?
Driving is a privilege; walking is a right.
Drivers cause most pedestrian crashes, so driver enforcement needs to be addressed before pedestrian enforcement. Recent Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data shows that driver violations account for over two-thirds of pedestrian crashes.
Motor vehicles cause the most harm on our roads (due to weight and speed) and generate the most serious consequences.
Motorists already have substantial protection from laws that they routinely disobey. The ‘speed trap’ law prohibits the enforcement of speed limits that most motorists exceed. AB 1238 merely extends to pedestrians that same protection against enforcement of a law that is routinely and safely disobeyed.
Would legalizing jaywalking undermine pedestrian safety?
No. Speeding, busier roads, increasingly distracted drivers, lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure, and other driving or road factors are the biggest threats to pedestrian safety. Mid-block crossings or crossing against the light where no cars are coming doesn’t endanger pedestrians.
Unless we take measures to improve street safety and calm traffic, pedestrian crashes will continue to rise. Rather than responding by limiting and punishing pedestrian activity, we should address the factors that actually give rise to these increased crashes.
Studies suggest that the design of modern SUVs and trucks is now one of the main culprits in pedestrian fatalities. Higher grills give drivers large front blind spots and cause more severe injuries during collisions with people on foot.
Don’t jaywalking tickets provide important revenue for state and local governments?
Jaywalking fines and fees are especially difficult to collect.
Jaywalking citations are disproportionately distributed in low-income neighborhoods; in Bakersfield, for instance, only 17% of census tracts have a median income below $37,404, yet 92% of jaywalking citations were imposed in these low-income tracts.
Aside from the difficulty collecting jaywalking fines, it is simply not equitable for state and local governments to rely on our lowest-income residents for revenue generation.
Revenue enhancement should never be a reason for the enforcement of laws. Public safety should.
If you support the repeal of unjust and illogical jaywalking laws, tell your California Senator to vote YES on AB 1238, the Freedom to Walk Act.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/cropped-jaywalking.jpeg8661600Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2021-08-12 16:29:302021-08-12 16:29:31Why California Should Decriminalize Jaywalking
A bicycle commuter and Assemblymember from Pasadena, Laura Friedman, is fighting hard to defend her proposals to give local officials more power to set lower speed limits where doing so will save lives. CalBike strongly supports all measures that reduce the speeds of automobiles wherever people walk and bike. We need you to support Friedman’s proposals in AB 43.
Speed kills but speed limits keep rising
Even though speed is the top risk factor in pedestrian fatalities in California, our rules about setting speed limits are designed to reward speeding. To set a speed limit, current regulations require local officials to measure the speed of existing drivers and set the limit at the closest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed. This means that the speed of the driver who is going faster than 85 out of 100 drivers on the road determines the speed limit.
As cars get bigger and more powerful and safer — for their occupants but nobody else — people drive faster. Local officials are often forced to raise speed limits when they measure existing conditions. In other words, speeding drivers set speed limits.
AB 43 makes small changes to the rules about setting speed limits that will lead to significant changes in the lives of Californians whose families won’t have to mourn the violent death of a loved one hit by a car.
Primary elements of AB 43:
It allows local agencies to reduce the speed limit on designated “high injury corridor streets” to 5 mph below what would otherwise be required.
It extends the time that an agency can maintain a speed limit before being forced to raise it from 10 years to 14 years.
It reduces the absolute minimum speed limit in certain narrowly defined commercial districts from 25 mph to 20 mph or 15 mph.
It allows local agencies to consider the safety of people walking and biking when they set speed limits.
Together, these changes represent the biggest challenge to the 85th percentile rule since its establishment.
The origins of the 85th percentile rule
If you’ve driven in rural areas, you’ve probably seen speed limits go down as you approach a small town, even though the roadway hasn’t changed. In the past, towns would deliberately set lower speed limits to generate revenue from out-of-town motorists. The town sheriff or police officer would set up a speed trap and hand out tickets.
Legislators outlawed such speed traps and instead required that speed limits be set at a “more reasonable” speed. On the assumption that most motorists don’t exceed a safe speed, they defined “most” as 85%.
However, over time, most drivers have come to consider it practically a civil right to drive as fast as the road will safely allow. This sense of entitlement has stymied earlier efforts to change the 85th percentile rule, which makes the tweaks in Friedman’s AB 43 an impressive policy effort.
How AB 43 changes the 85th percentile rule
Let’s take the example of a 4-lane arterial that passes by senior centers and playgrounds and has bike lanes. The speed limit is 35 mph. To enforce that speed limit, local officials have to update their measurement of actual speeds every five or seven years.
If they find that 85% of drivers are going at least 43 mph, they have to raise the speed limit to 45 mph, because that is the closest 5 mph speed increment to the 85th percentile of drivers. If some exceptions apply, a local agency may rounddown instead of rounding to the closest 5 mph increment, so they might be able to set the speed limit at 40 mph.
In this scenario, 40 mph is still an increase over the current speed limit and way too fast for safety, considering the uses of this street. If this road is on a city’s “high injury corridor,” AB 43 will allow local officials to reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph. In this case, that would keep the speed limit unchanged.
This will save lives in Los Angeles, where officials very reluctantly had to raise speed limits on hundreds of miles of arterials, thanks to the 85th percentile rule. AB 43 will allow them to reverse that deadly change.
What California needs to create truly safe streets
So how do we solve the problem of roads built to prioritize fast cars? The best answer is better street design to limit speed. Features such as protected bike lanes, bulb-outs, chicanes, and speed humps can create slow-speed streets that are friendlier and safer for people on bikes and walking.
When repaving, cities should add these features. But we can’t wait decades to rebuild our streets, which is why CalBike created a Quick-Build Guide to help planners design the changes we need now and implement them in months rather than years.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/speeding_cam.jpg6261200Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2021-08-05 19:06:002021-08-05 19:06:02Assemblymember Friedman tweaks speed limit laws to save lives
