Contact: Jared Sanchez, jared@calbike.org, (714)262-0921
SB 960 Complete Streets Bill Hearing in Assembly Transportation Committee Monday, July 1, 2024
SACRAMENTO – The Complete Streets Bill of 2024, SB 960, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on Monday, July 1, 2024, at 2:30 pm.
The Complete Streets Bill requires Caltrans to consider the needs of people riding bikes, walking, and taking transit on our state roadways, many of which serve as local streets. Caltrans policy mandates this, but the agency often doesn’t follow through; SB 960 will codify Caltrans policy in state law and increase accountability.
What is a Complete Street?
Complete Streets are streets that are safe and comfortable for people biking, walking, and taking transit, as well as driving motor vehicles. Protected bikeways, a key element of many Complete Streets, have been shown to reduce fatalities and injuries for road users in all modes of transportation.
“People who get around by biking, walking, or taking transit have the same right to safe passage on our streets as people driving cars. True Complete Streets provide equitable use of our public space regardless of transit mode, economic status, or race,” said Jared Sanchez, policy director for CalBike.
Caltrans and Active Transportation Projects
While Caltrans has made incremental progress in adding more bike- and pedestrian-friendly features to its repaving projects, the 2023 firing of one of the agency’s strongest voices for active transportation shows the need for greater oversight and accountability.
The agency’s Complete Streets checklists treat any element that makes biking or walking even marginally safer as a “Complete Streets” feature, ignoring the fact that a single crosswalk or “Share the Road” sign is often not enough to create a Complete Street.
The Complete Streets Bill requires Caltrans to set objective goals and to better implement comfortable, convenient, and connected facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on all projects in the [SHOPP funding] program, where applicable.
Background
CalBike sponsored SB 127, the Complete Streets for Active Living Bill, in 2019. The bill would have required Caltrans to follow its own Complete Streets Policy and prioritize the safety of everyone who uses our roads, not just drivers, on every repaving, maintenance, and rehab project. Despite overwhelming support in the legislature and from constituents, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the Complete Streets Bill in 2019.
In 2023, CalBike joined with over 100 mobility, climate justice, and transportation organizations to send a letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, urging an independent investigation of Caltrans, a moratorium on freeway expansion, and better oversight of the agency.
In 2024, CalBike is sponsoring a Complete Streets Bill introduced by Senator Wiener, SB 960.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/RectangleBikes.png7241825Brian Smithhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngBrian Smith2024-06-28 16:12:262024-06-28 16:12:26SB 960 Complete Streets Bill Hearing in Assembly Transportation Committee Monday, July 1, 2024
SACRAMENTO — CalBike appreciates the Legislature and Governor’s efforts to restore the $600 million cut from the Active Transportation Program in the governor’s May Revise. The final budget, announced over the weekend, restores $100 million in the 2024-2025 fiscal year, with another $100 million promised for 2025-2026. The remaining $400 million could be restored by future appropriations, leaving the door open for future growth of the program.
CalBike led the coalition that pushed elected leaders to deliver on their promises and restore full funding to the only dedicated state funding source for projects that make our streets safer for people riding bikes, walking, and taking transit, especially in disadvantaged communities where safe street infrastructure is most lacking.
“We are running out of time to change our transportation systems to protect the lives of Californians and our climate,” said CalBike Policy Director Jared Sanchez. “Californians want safe streets. I hope this budget deal signals willingness to commit to funding infrastructure that supports carbon-free transportation options and reduce the horrendous toll of traffic violence on our streets.”
The $100 million restored in the current budget comes from the General Fund rather than our state transportation funds. As California transportation dollars continue to surge with federal funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, state leaders have made bold claims about how much highway funding already supports active transportation on Caltrans projects. CalBike will hold them accountable to those claims by pushing for passage of Senator Scott Wiener’s Complete Streets Bill, SB 960. The Complete Streets Bill is a critical step toward mandating implementation of biking, walking, and transit facilities on state highways.
“Given the difficult budget year, we appreciate the final budget agreement protecting $200 million for the Active Transportation Program,” said CalBike consultant Jeanie Ward-Waller. “However, we have more work to do to continue to grow the most equitable and sustainable transportation program in future years. We look forward to working with the legislature and the governor to prioritize more active transportation funding in the future.”
Note: This information was compiled in August of 2023 and updated in June 2024. California laws and regulations are subject to change. Please consult the California Vehicle Code (CVC) sections governing e-bikes for the most up-to-date information.
Some of the recent furor over the increased presence of e-bikes on California streets has centered on mobility devices sold as e-bikes that may push the boundaries of what counts as an electric bicycle in the state of California. So here’s a look at e-bike classification, an emerging class of two-wheeled vehicles called ZEMs, and the gray area in between.
E-bikes and the law
As legally defined vehicles, e-bikes are subject to several laws in California (and even some federal regulations as well). Under California law, an e-bike is essentially treated the same as a standard bicycle—with a few exceptions. E-bikes are to be operated like conventional bicycles in California and are not considered motor vehicles under the California Vehicle Code.
As such, e-bikes in California are exempted from various laws and requirements that apply to motorcycles and automobiles. For example, e-bike operators need not have or use:
Operator’s licenses
State or local registration
Motor vehicle insurance
License plates
So what is an e-bike?
California’s e-bike classifications
The California vehicle code defines e-bikes as: “[A] bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.” It further breaks e-bikes into three categories, following a classification system created by PeopleForBikes that has been adopted in 40 states.
Class 1: Provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 20 mph
Class 2: Operates via pedal-assist or throttle and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 20 mph
Class 3: Provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches a speed of 28 mph
Because there is some variation in e-bike classification from state to state, an e-bike manufacturer may not specify an e-bike’s class on their website. You can determine the class by comparing the bike’s specifications to the information above or asking at the bike shop where you buy your e-bike.
Who can operate an e-bike in California?
There are no age restrictions on Class 1 and 2 e-bikes. Riders must be at least 16 to operate a Class 3 e-bike, and all Class 3 riders must wear helmets. All riders under 18 must wear a helmet on any type of bike, motorized or not.
Who can carry passengers on an e-bike?
All e-bikes set up to accommodate passengers are permitted to carry a passenger. Riders and passengers under 18 must wear a helmet. Passengers of all ages on Class 3 e-bikes must wear helmets.
Which e-bikes are pedal assist only?
Class 1 and Class 3 e-bikes provide a boost from the motor only when the rider pedals. If the rider stops pedaling, the motor cuts out and the bike loses momentum.
What’s the top speed of a throttle e-bike?
Class 2 e-bikes, which have a throttle that allows the motor to power the bike without the rider pedaling, have a maximum motor speed of 20 mph.
Can e-bikes go faster than their assist limits?
E-bikes provide a boost up to their speed limits (20 and 28 mph). A rider may go faster than that by pedaling harder, but the motor won’t give any additional propulsion over those speeds.
What’s a zero-emission motorcycle (ZEM)?
Electric motorcycles, classified as zero-emission motorcycles (ZEMs) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), can include anything from a moped or motorized scooter to a full-sized motorcycle. A ZEM may have a powerful enough engine to travel at freeway speeds, but not all do.
Unlike e-bikes, ZEMs must be registered with the DMV and are not allowed to ride in bike lanes. ZEMs do not have pedals and operate solely on motor power.
CARB is working on creating incentives for ZEMs as part of California’s transition to clean transportation.
Where can I ride?
The law prevents cities from restricting access to e-bike riders in places like bicycle paths or trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes.
People may ride e-bikes on roadways but are subject to the California Vehicle Code (CVC)—which covers basic rules of the road, like going with the flow of traffic and obeying lights and signs.
Local authorities could still block access to e-bikes on certain equestrian trails or hiking and recreational trails. The Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or trail within the department’s jurisdiction.
New e-bike regulations in the works
Several laws relating to e-bikes are moving through the California legislature and, in addition, local jurisdictions are creating local restrictions on where people can ride e-bikes. You can find a list of Orange County local regulations in this spreadsheet and we recently wrote a summary of e-bike bills. Join CalBike’s mailing list to stay up to date on the latest developments.
Two-wheeled EVs in the gray area
Some electric, two-wheeled vehicles fall into a gray area between e-bikes and ZEMs. These bikes can be manufactured and sold in California but may not be street-legal under California e-bike regulations.
For example, at least one manufacturer markets their products as e-bikes but sells bikes with an “off-road” setting with a top speed listed as “28+ mph,” implying that the motor is capable of providing a boost above California’s top e-bike speed of 28 mph. Another brand doesn’t list the top speed or e-bike class on its website.
It’s unclear whether bikes like these qualify as e-bikes under California law, which states, in part: “On and after January 1, 2017, manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently affixed, in a prominent location, to each electric bicycle. The label shall contain the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the electric bicycle, and shall be printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type.”
It may not look like a bike
E-bikes evolved from traditional bikes, so many e-bikes resemble standard bikes modified to include a motor and battery. However, some new e-bike models are moving away from traditional bicycle design. They may have fat tires and frames that resemble small motorbikes more than standard bicycles. As long as they have operable pedals and fall within California’s e-bike classification system, these e-bikes are bicycles and may use bike lanes.
What is not an e-bike?
According to the California DMV, two categories of classification exist between e-bikes and motorcycles.
A motor-driven cycle is “a motorcycle with less than a 150 cc motor size.” These bikes are not allowed to operate on controlled-access freeways or highways.
A motorized bicycle or moped is “a two or three-wheeled device, capable of no more than 30 miles per hour (mph) on level ground.” The vehicle code further defines this type of bike as “having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy.” The DMV notes that these vehicles may use bike lanes, if authorized by local ordinance.
Both motor-driven cycles and mopeds must be registered with the DMV (e-bikes are not required to register), and riders need a motorcycle license to operate them.
Some of the bikes that fall into the gray area may be more properly classified as mopeds or motorcycles (if their motors go faster than 30 mph) than e-bikes.
CalBike is committed to working on legislation to clarify the role and place of bikes in our communities. We also continue to advocate for more funding to build bikeways that are comfortable for all riders, on e-bikes or standard bikes. And, in the future, maybe we’ll need to build bicycle fast lanes!
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Yuba_bikes_spicy_curry_blue_sideboards_bread_basket_deck_couple_mucem_woman_hands_in_the_air-copy-scaled.jpeg17072560Kevin Claxtonhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKevin Claxton2024-06-21 16:51:152024-08-06 13:26:14What Is an E-Bike? A Guide to California E-Bike Classifications.
As e-bikes grow more popular, a spate of bills and regulations have cropped up at the state and local levels. CalBike is following several measures in the California legislature that relate to e-bikes. We’re also keeping an eye on new local measures that restrict e-bike use, mostly in Southern California.
Here’s a complete recap of the state legislation we’re watching and a very incomplete accounting of local proposed e-bike restrictions.
CalBike supports: E-bike battery safety
The E-Bike Battery Safety Bill (SB 1271, Min) would require all electric bikes sold in California to meet certain minimum safety standards and be certified by an accredited testing laboratory. We support this bill, which passed in the Senate and was just approved by the Assembly Transportation Committee. The next step is the Assembly Committee on Emergency Management.
Battery safety is critical for e-bikes since people often park their bikes inside homes or garages and bring the batteries inside to charge. Poorly manufactured lithium-ion batteries can overheat during charging and start fires. New York City, where delivery drivers often ride hundreds of miles and rely on jury-rigged aftermarket batteries for extra power, has seen several devastating fires. Senator Dave Min’s bill will prevent California from experiencing the same problem and push the market toward safety-tested batteries.
CalBike supports: E-bike modification
The E-Bike Modification Bill (AB 1774, Dixon) would make it illegal to tamper with an e-bike to make it give an electric boost faster than 28 mph, which is the top boosted e-bike speed allowed in California. Current law says that all e-bikes must be labeled as Class I, II, or III, depending on the top speed (20 or 28 mph) and whether it has a throttle.
If someone modifies an e-bike so it operates as a different class, the label must be changed to reflect the new classification. This bill is aimed at some vehicles sold as e-bikes in California that can be modified to get around speed limiters on the motor or have “off-road” modes that go faster than 28 mph. CalBike supports this bill.
CalBike is watching: Local e-bike restrictions
Two bills advancing through the legislative process would create pilot projects for greater restrictions on e-bike use. AB 1778 (Connolly) would extend the restrictions that currently apply to Class III e-bikes, which can go up to 28 mph with pedal assist, to Class II e-bikes, which have a top speed of 20 mph with a throttle as well as pedal assist. The pilot in Marin County would prohibit people under age 16 from riding a Class II bike and require helmets for all users, should a city pass a local ordinance.
We initially opposed Assemblymember Tasha Boerner’s AB 2234 when it proposed statewide e-bike licensing. However, the bill has been amended and is now a local pilot in San Diego County that allows local jurisdictions to prohibit people under 12 from operating Class I or II e-bikes. People under 16 are already prohibited from riding Class III bikes. The pilot would continue through 2029 with a reporting requirement to assess its effect on safety.
Died in committee: Banning e-bikes on boardwalks
Southern California beach towns have a good problem: their lovely oceanfront pathways and boardwalks are too popular. More people than ever are coming out to walk or bike on off-road paths, and the crowded conditions have led to conflicts between pedestrians and bike riders.
Unfortunately, the most logical solution, to create more space for active transportation and recreation, is time-consuming and costly. So, many officials have turned toward e-bike restrictions as the solution (more about that below). Assemblymember Diane Dixon’s AB 1773 would have added boardwalks to the list of facilities where e-bikes may be banned. The measure died quickly in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but local officials are coming up with creative ways to restrict e-bikes.
Local e-bike restrictions
It’s almost summer, so it’s time for the seasonal freakout over e-bikes in Southern California. Orange County recently passed new regulations, some of which needlessly duplicate state laws (bike riders under 18 must wear helmets, no one under 16 can ride a Class III e-bike).
But the regulations go beyond state law in limiting e-bikes to no more than 28 mph on county highways (riders could exceed that speed through pedal power, and some even ride faster than that on road bikes). They also prohibit bike riders from being more than two abreast, which sounds like a buzzkill for group rides, and, confusingly, prohibit passengers except small children in child seats or people on a tandem.
The Orange County regulations seem to be designed to preserve road space for motor vehicles rather than ensure the safety of people on bikes. Riding in a group is safer than riding alone. Passengers haven’t been the cause of any e-bike crashes CalBike is aware of, and many e-bikes are designed to accommodate an adult passenger.
Hermosa Beach has banned e-bikes from the Greenbelt in response to an incident where a group of teens riding e-bikes threw fireworks into a crowd on the Hermosa Beach Pier. The actions were illegal and dangerous, but it was the people on the bikes, not the e-bikes, that launched the fireworks. Would the city have banned cars from the area if someone had thrown fireworks out a car window? Of course not.
CalBike’s Andrew Wright, who rides in this area, noted, “This path is the safest bike route in the Beach Cities corridor. Forcing riders onto perilous roads like Sepulveda Blvd or Highland Ave — already treacherous and congested — poses an unacceptable risk, particularly for children enjoying a summer ride.”
Orange County and Hermosa Beach are just two examples of scapegoating e-bikes. There may be real problems that need to be addressed, but restricting people from enjoying bike rides or getting where they need to go without a car is not the solution.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/e-bike-slider-v2.jpg4301500Jared Sanchezhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngJared Sanchez2024-06-18 18:58:142024-06-21 17:02:29E-Bike Bills and Regulations Update
The Bicycle Kitchen in Los Angeles, a volunteer-operated bicycle workspace, recently launched FTWNB Fridays, a special time from 6 pm to 9 pm dedicated to supporting and celebrating volunteers who are femme, trans women, and non-binary individuals. Join them at 4429 Fountain Ave in Los Angeles for this inclusive and empowering event.
This guest post is by Julieta Renteria
I first came to the Bicycle Kitchen on a Saturday afternoon last year to replace a stolen bike. There was a big group of school-age boys working their fixies and about a half-dozen male volunteers showing them the ropes. It didn’t bother me much; I was used to being the only woman at the ride. At most of the bike shops I’d visited, male mechanics were often condescending and sometimes creepy; at least here they were friendly, even if they did make assumptions about my experience as a rider. I’d seen similar organizations in other cities and wanted to get involved, so I came back to volunteer. I met Tiff Smith, a local legend among endurance racers, an encyclopedia of bike knowledge, and the Bicycle Kitchen’s only woman mechanic at the time.
The Bicycle Kitchen is a nonprofit community workshop focused on educating and empowering more people to get on their bikes while advocating for active transportation and accessibility for all. It’s a cross-section of the Los Angeles bike community where road racers, dirt riders, and everyday commuters of all ages and backgrounds come together to share their love of bikes. Even here, in a place that prioritizes equality, the participants are overwhelmingly men. Today, less than 15% of volunteers identify as women, and even fewer as trans or nonbinary.
It wasn’t always this way. Thirteen years ago, when Tiff first came to the Kitchen, about a third of the volunteers identified as women. Those individuals helped lay the groundwork for growth and set up many of the processes for how the organization currently operates. There was a dedicated volunteer shift composed completely of women, and the Kitchen hosted events for female riders.
While it is the nature of a volunteer-operated organization to have some turnover, today we’re faced with a catch-22: it’s difficult to recruit and retain gender-diverse volunteers because there is no gender diversity. Although most men at the kitchen would call themselves allies, they don’t share the kind of connection and solidarity it takes to build community. Representation matters. If we aren’t intentionally saving a seat at the table for people of diverse identities, then those people won’t feel welcomed to participate, and that’s a loss for all of us.
Graphic by Matilda Pham
I kept coming back during Tiff’s shifts and slowly grew my confidence with a wrench. I made it a point to welcome women and gender-expansive folks, and I saw that there wasn’t a lack of interest, just lack of visibility. Groups like Wild Wolf Cycling Collective, Gender Expansive Ride, LA Cyclery, and Los Angeles Bike Academy are holding space for women, trans, and non-binary riders. Now, as more non-male riders and volunteers are getting involved, the Bicycle Kitchen has begun holding space every Friday for femme, trans, non-binary, and women-identifying folks to be in community. It’s a time to fix bikes, learn from and uplift each other, and, more importantly, feel seen and be fully ourselves.
Sometimes it’s intimidating to stand my ground and claim space within a culture that can feel oppressively male, but the sense of empowerment that comes with being able to fix my own bike makes it worthwhile. It’s a feeling I hope all women, trans, and non-binary riders can enjoy. I’m honored to be a part of a new, more inclusive chapter of the Bike Kitchen’s story.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IMG_3666-scaled.jpeg25601920CalBike Staffhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngCalBike Staff2024-06-18 18:48:322024-06-18 18:56:13The Importance of Intentionality when Creating Gender-Expansive Space in Bicycle Communities
The Building Standards Commission is updating the California Building Standards Code sections governing bicycle parking, pursuant to a 2022 lawCalBike helped pass. That law requires bicycle parking standards to be added to the code during its next update.
The commission seeks public comment by July 1, 2024. You can view the proposed rules online and see CalBike’s comment letter below for more information. Send comments to cbsc@dgs.ca.gov.
Why bicycle parking matters
A safe place to store a bike is essential if people are going to adopt the bicycle for everyday transportation. Bicycle theft is widespread, and leaving a bike out in the elements can increase wear and cause it to require more frequent maintenance. With the popularity of e-bikes, theft is an even bigger consideration. So the availability of secure bike parking in residential buildings is existential for bike riders.
Car parking adds to the expense of building, reduces the space available for housing humans, and encourages more driving. Bicycle parking is much more space efficient. Ample, secure bike parking in a residential building or at a business incentivizes and normalizes active transportation.
Bike parking is a nerdy and arcane topic. But, like many such topics, it has a crucial role to play in our move toward more climate-friendly transportation.
CalBike recommendations: space for cargo bikes, e-bike charging, and short-term bike parking
The Building Standards Code will set minimum requirements for bicycle parking in new and remodeled residential and commercial buildings. Cities can have stronger requirements but must at least adhere to these minimums.
The proposed change to the code would require 0.5 long-term bike parking spots per unit in residential buildings. We think that’s not enough and recommend doubling that to one spot per unit. These spots must include some that can accommodate longer or wider bikes such as cargo bikes and adaptive bicycles. In addition, the parking area needs outlets for e-bike charging.
For commercial spaces, the standard for requiring additional bike parking when remodeling is vague and will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Rather than relying on a hard-to-measure standard of increased foot traffic, we believe the code should require businesses that don’t meet current standards to upgrade bicycle parking when they remodel or make improvements.
See our letter below for more detailed and specific recommendations.
Two bills in the legislature right now are shining a spotlight on Class III bikeways and how we should and should not deploy them. CalBike has heard from some bike riders who rely on Class III bikeways and don’t want to see them restricted. So we want to take a look at California’s bikeway classification system, what is a Class III bikeway, and how the measures we support would affect people’s ability to take the lane.
Class III in two bills
The Quicker and Better Bikeways Bill (AB 2290, Friedman) includes a provision prohibiting the Active Transportation Program from funding “a project that creates a Class III bikeway unless the project is on a street with a design speed limit of 20 miles per hour or less or the project will reduce the design speed limit to 20 miles per hour or less.” It doesn’t stop communities from building Class III facilities with other funding sources and, since this type of bikeway is often just paint and signs, the costs may be minimal.
Another bill addressing Class III bikeways is SB 1216 (Blakespear). That measure “would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2025, an agency responsible for the development or operation of bikeways or highways where bicycle travel is permitted from installing or restriping a Class III bikeway or a sharrow on a highway that has a posted speed limit greater than 30 miles per hour.” This bill is more comprehensive in its Class III prohibition but with the same goal: to stop slower bicycle traffic from mixing with fast-moving motor vehicles.
The conflicting speed restrictions in these bills are being negotiated now, and they will not ultimately conflict. CalBike supports both bills and the concept of limiting Class III bikeways to low-speed streets.
So what is a Class III bikeway anyway?
California bikeway classifications explained
California has four categories of bikeways. Class I is an off-road or shared-use path. Class II is a bike lane delineated only by paint. Class III is a facility where bike riders and car drivers share space, which is often marked by sharrows showing the preferred bicyclist lane position, or bike boulevard markings or signs.
Class IV is where it gets confusing. The first three classes are progressively less protective, but Class IV takes a couple of steps in the other direction: it’s an on-road facility where bicyclists are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. The reason for the odd order is that protected bikeways weren’t legal in California until CalBike and other advocates passed a law in 2015.
Each class of bikeway has its uses and pros and cons. Class I paths are the most comfortable and enjoyable for the widest range of users. However, space constraints limit where they can be placed, and their separation from local amenities can make them more suitable for recreation or commuting than running errands.
Class II lanes are often cheap to install and use existing pavement. They require fewer infrastructure changes and take less space on the road than a physically separated bikeway. However, Class II lanes without a painted buffer can put bike riders a few inches of paint away from fast-moving traffic. They are often placed on the margins of roadways, leaving bike riders to navigate a narrow space that may include drainage grates, pavement seams, and debris.
Class II lanes painted next to a row of parked cars can be more dangerous than no bike lane if they direct people on bikes to ride in the door zone. These door zone lanes also create an expectation among car drivers that bikes will stay in the lane, creating conflict when a cautious rider moves away from the door zone.
Class IV bikeways are the gold standard for safe bike space on streets. A Class IV facility can use a number of things to create physical separation from car traffic, including: planter boxes, parked cars, parklets, hard curb, movable curb-like devices affixed to the pavement, or bollards. More communities around California are looking to Class IV as the preferred infrastructure for creating safe bikeways in crowded urban spaces.
Class III bikeways can take many forms. It might be a set of sharrows in the right traffic lane, bike boulevard stencils or signage on a traffic-calmed street, or a wide shoulder on a rural road. Class III allows planners to create space for bike riders on streets that are too narrow to add delineated bike space. On bicycle boulevards, bike traffic takes priority, and bike riders are encouraged to take the lane. On rural stretches of roads like Highway 1, a wide shoulder may provide enough space for a long-distance bike traveler to ride safely; on low-volume rural routes, a shared lane could be considered sufficient if bicyclists aren’t likely to encounter two vehicles passing in opposite directions at once.
Where Class III bikeways cause problems is when they are used as the easy way out when finding the space for Class II or IV bikeways would mean removing parking, a median, or a lane of traffic. Placing sharrows on a street with heavy or fast-moving car traffic can put bike riders in harm’s way. The two bills in the legislature have the right idea, limiting Class III markings to slow streets where mixing between bikes and cars won’t put bike riders in danger.
Who can ride in the street
Bike riders who are confident riding in traffic can still do so, even if Class III bikeways go away on fast streets. California law requires people on bikes to ride as far to the right of the road as is practicable, but bikes may take the lane on narrow streets or to avoid obstacles.
If there is a Class II bike lane, riders are required to use it if it’s safe. (Please note: It’s not safe to ride in the door zone, so stay around 3’ from parked cars, even if that puts you outside the bike lane. You have a legal right not to ride in this danger zone.) People on bikes are not required to stay in Class IV bikeways and can choose to ride in the traffic lane instead, keeping faster riders from being stuck behind slower bicycle traffic.
So confident riders will still be welcome to take the lane, even if AB 2290 and SB 1216 pass, but new riders won’t be lured into dangerous situations, and planners will have one less excuse for not installing all-ages bikeways in their communities.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Sharrow-Long-Beach.jpeg465800Kendra Ramseyhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngKendra Ramsey2024-06-05 17:25:182024-06-05 17:25:19Class III Bikeways: Sharing the Lane
This post was written by the National Youth Bike Council. CalBike is delighted to see a new generation of advocates working together through NYBC and the Youth Bike Summit.
Top photo: Youth Bike Summit youth-only attendees take a photo in 2016
Bicycles serve as a great catalyst, more now than ever, in aiding youth health in the U.S. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately 20.1% of U.S. youth aged 12 to 17 experienced at least one major depressive episode in 2021, but we are here to change that.
Reclaiming youth health is best done directly through peer-to-peer engagement, like through the initiatives run by the National Youth Bike Council (NYBC). NYBC is a youth-led organization that started in 2017. It was formed to create more young leaders with the ultimate goal of improving their health and the health of those around them. Biking as an aerobic exercise is an amazing way to improve physical fitness while also creating a system of community and care for the environment in the process.
Youth Bike Summit brings young advocates together
In 2016, originating Council members Adiva, Joshua, and Noah attended our first Youth Bike Summit. The Youth Bike Summit offers educators and students a place to connect, discover new initiatives being led by other young people, form friend groups, and learn about topics from sustainability to civil action.
The next National Youth Bike Summit will be held in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, June 14-16, 2024. More information about attending can be found here.
Since it started in 2011, the Youth Bike Summit has stood on five beliefs:
Youth have the capacity to lead.
The bicycle has the power to be a catalyst for positive social change.
It is important to have a diverse, multicultural, and equitable movement.
When the youth ride bikes, our communities are healthier, more sustainable, and more socially advanced.
Sharing and learning together will make each of us stronger.
Those beliefs have held strong, motivating Adiva, Joshua, and Noah to create the Council. After we created NYBC, Joshua became the president and led the Council to recruit city youth representatives from different communities across the U.S. to help work on one-off initiatives that would promote youth leadership.
Youth presenters at the Youth Bike Summit
Originally, the organizers of the Youth Bike Summit were a collective of youth bike program staff from different bike shops or afterschool programs. After 2020, the NYBC took charge of leading future summits because managing operations at home became a bigger concern for many of these programs than organizing the Summit.
Although the NYBC has been established, Council members dream of bigger ideas for what bicycles can do for their peers. Some of these ideas include creating environments where communities can take advantage of active local youth action groups that improve the bicycle experience through a youth perspective.
As the new leaders of the Youth Bike Summit, we envision a world where young people can use the bicycle and their own leadership to improve the health of their communities. The Youth Bike Summit is a unique opportunity to demonstrate the power of youth leadership and excitement around bicycles as desired by young people.
Youth advocates need support from the wider bicycling community
Today, the Council hosts the annual Youth Bike Summit to enable networking and learning opportunities for its youth bike-oriented partners. Additionally, the Council performs one-off initiatives that promote youth leadership and bicycling through conferences, speaking, and local projects.
Organizing young people and their supporters through the Youth Bike Summit is an ambitious way to tackle the health crisis facing young people today. Without the support of the larger community, youth-led transportation initiatives like the NYBC, the Youth Bike Summit, and local youth initiatives won’t realize their full potential to impact the health of young people across the U.S. Help us make a positive change by telling your friends and loved ones about this amazing event! If you’re not able to attend, then join us in Boston at the 2025 Youth Bike Summit. Find out more through our newsletter.
This year’s Youth Bike Summit (YBS) will be hosted by Community Bike Works from June 14-16 in Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, and will kick off on Friday evening with a welcome reception.
Saturday will offer a full day of classroom-based and ride-based workshops, including opportunities for attendees to try the track at the Velodrome or participate in a bikes and boating adventure.
YBS will culminate on Sunday with the YBS Big Ride that will take attendees through downtown Allentown, along the historic D&L Trail, and to Bethlehem’s iconic Steel Stacks.
https://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/National-Youth-Bike-Summit.jpeg10661600CalBike Staffhttps://www.calbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/calbike-logo.pngCalBike Staff2024-06-04 16:07:532024-06-04 16:07:54Youth Bike Council Improves Youth Health Two Wheels at a Time
