January 2025 - CalBike

CalBike Launches Virtual Summit Session Series

January 31, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

Every two years, CalBike hosts the California Bicycle Summit, bringing together advocates, planners, agency staffers, and members of the bicycle community to share insights and dream up a future full of bicycles. In February, we will launch a series of free virtual sessions to bring our community together for thought-provoking and insightful discussions year-round.

First virtual summit session announced for February 20, 2025

The first virtual summit session is “Creative Approaches to Funding Active Transportation Infrastructure.” The new administration in Washington makes it likely that federal funding for active transportation projects will decrease. But local governments and bicycle advocates can still find creative ways to fund infrastructure, planning, and education projects.

Register for Creative Approaches to Funding Active Transportation Infrastructure

The session will also address alternatives for funding active transportation infrastructure beyond the Active Transportation Program (ATP), which routinely has far more applications than it can fund.

Our initial webinar will feature programs managed by the Strategic Growth Council, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the California Air Resources Board, and the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

Presenters:

Brianne Logasa and Marc Caswell, California Strategic Growth Council
Joey Juhasz-Lukomski, Shared Use Mobility Center
Laurie Waters, California Transportation Commission
Mary McGuirk Lizarraga or Omar Atayee, San Diego Association of Governments

We hope you can join us.

What: California Bicycle Summit Virtual Session
When: Thursday, February 20, 2025, 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Where: On Zoom
Cost: Free, but registration is required

CalBike Joins Amicus Brief in Safe Streets Accountability Case

January 28, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

On January 3, CalBike joined with Bike East Bay and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition to file an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court in the case of Whitehead vs. City of Oakland. We rarely get involved in legal cases, but this case, in which lower courts used flawed logic to immunize the City of Oakland for the inadequate road maintenance that led to the crash, sets a dangerous precedent.

Fundamentally, lower court and appellate judges have categorized bike riders as “recreational” street users who venture onto public streets at their own risk. This position reduces bicycles to toys or exercise equipment and seriously endangers the safety of people riding bikes on California’s public roads, whether for exercise, transportation, or a mix of both.

The crux of the lawsuit

In 2017, Ty Whitehead was on a training ride for the AIDS Lifecycle in the Oakland Hills when his bike hit a pothole. Whitehead was thrown from the bike and seriously injured, and he sued the City of Oakland. This crash is another in a long string of bicyclist injuries and fatalities caused by Oakland’s poorly maintained roads.

But, unlike in most cases, the city has contested Whitehead’s lawsuit rather than settling. Oakland won in the trial court and on appeal, and the case could set a very bad precedent when it comes to holding cities responsible for maintaining safe roadways.

Whitehead had signed a liability waiver as part of his participation in AIDS Lifecycle. Oakland argued that, since he was on a Lifecycle training ride at the time of the crash, it couldn’t be held liable, even though the city wasn’t a party to the agreement Whitehead had signed.

The legal principles are complex, but it boils down to a city refusing to take responsibility for a crash in an area with a reported pothole because the rider signed a liability waiver with a third party. This is a dangerous precedent since long-distance ride participants aren’t the only bike riders who sign liability waivers. For example, bike-share user agreements often include waivers. Does that mean that if a rider wipes out because of a known but unremediated road hazard on a bike-share bike, the city isn’t liable for their injuries resulting from poor road maintenance?

Oakland’s bad faith

A few years ago, Oakland conducted a study aimed at understanding the underlying causes behind the high number of lawsuits for bicyclist injuries and how to reduce those costs. It discovered, not surprisingly, that poor pavement conditions were at fault in more than half of these lawsuits.

Oakland’s Department of Transportation is probably, like its counterparts in most California cities, underfunded and overburdened. The city has made big strides in providing protective infrastructure for people biking and walking in recent years and shown that it can move fast at times, like when it installed a quick-build upgrade to a crosswalk a few months after a pedestrian was hit and killed.

But Oakland didn’t respond to the information about the role of bad pavement and especially potholes in bike crash injuries by increasing the budget for road repair and prioritizing bike routes. Instead, it blamed the victim, painting bike riders as risk-taking daredevils. This is exactly the wrong messaging if you want more people to switch from driving to riding a bike. “Get on a bike — but also, you might die, so take your chances” isn’t a winning message.

Here’s how the bike coalition brief, drafted by Shaana A. Rahman of Rahman Law, summarized the city’s response to the data on bike-related lawsuits:

“The Oakland DOT summarized five strategies, not to properly maintain its bikeways per se, but rather to ‘manage and reduce’ their litigation exposure. One strategy included communicating to the public ‘the inherent risks (and benefits) of bicycling, particularly in the Oakland Hills, and the structural deficit in funding for paving.’ This communication strategy included the City identifying bicycling as an ‘inherently risky activity’ and sending the message that bicyclists should expect Oakland’s streets to have uneven roadway surfaces.”

Bike riders were singled out for this treatment, as the brief notes:

“The City supported its messaging that bicycling is a purported ‘inherently risky activity’ with its data showing that bicycle claims and lawsuits are costly. The data, of course, can also be interpreted to mean the City streets are dangerous thereby causing injuries to cyclists. Notably, the City’s data also shows that 50% of all claims and lawsuits against it in the same period were related to pedestrian incidents, versus just 6% of bicycle incidents. The Memorandum does not similarly conclude that the act of walking is inherently risky.”

Yes, Oakland used the concept that bike riding is inherently dangerous to support its arguments:

“While the City of Oakland does not assert immunity pursuant to §831.7, its argument rests heavily on the concept that the type of cycling Mr. Whitehead engaged in was dangerous. For

instance, the City asserts Mr. Whitehead ‘knew that cycling was dangerous and that one of those dangers was the risk of being injured by a pothole’ and that ‘[l]ong-distance cycling is a known dangerous activity.’ (ABM 40.) The City further asserts that ‘cycling on city streets is an inherently dangerous activity.’

“While encountering a pothole while riding a bicycle may indeed be a danger to cyclists, so too would be the risk of being struck by an inattentive driver. These so-called dangers or risks

can be borne by someone cycling to work or riding with friends to train for a long-distance ride. They can also be borne by pedestrians, and children on Big Wheels.”

The City’s argument is part of a long history of painting people on bikes as careless, reckless quasi-criminals who deserve any injuries they get while riding. It’s a dangerous assumption that leads drivers to see bike riders as less human and drive more recklessly around them. The California judicial system shouldn’t support this flawed and harmful way of thinking about people on bikes.

If you get hurt while having fun, it doesn’t count

Even worse, the City of Oakland’s arguments and the rulings by the court trivialize the act of riding a bike. From the brief:

“Simply put, riding a bicycle should be treated no differently than driving a car as driving a car can also be recreational. Were Plaintiff driving a car instead of riding a bike, there is no question that the City could not escape liability by asserting the Plaintiff was just “driving recreationally.”

Can you imagine a defendant arguing that it isn’t liable for injuries sustained in a car crash because the victim was driving around for pleasure? No, neither can we.

Whitehead vs. City of Oakland crucial to protecting the rights of bike riders

We need more people to ride bikes, walk, and take public transit. The way to encourage this is to make our streets safer for people who aren’t in a motor vehicle. The rulings in this lawsuit have essentially sent the message that people operate bikes at their own risk, regardless of a city failing to address reported road hazards.

If the California Supreme Court upholds the rulings of the lower courts in this case, it could have a chilling effect on bicycle mode shift in California.

From the brief:

“If exculpatory clauses [in waivers] like the one at issue are valid and enforceable as to bicyclists like Mr. Whitehead, they will be valid and enforceable as to the casual commute rider, or high school student riding to school on a rental bike. Nothing in the Act suggests the Legislature intended public entities to avoid responsibility for maintaining its public roads for bicyclists. Upholding the Court of Appeal ruling will do just that.”

Oakland has a gold rating on the League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly Communities list. Its unfriendly response to the ongoing issue of bike riders injured on its poorly maintained streets makes us wonder if that ranking is deserved.

Read the amicus brief.

Diverse Coalition of Advocacy Groups Urges California to Speed Up Emissions Reductions

January 23, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

A coalition of 61 local, statewide, and national organizations, including CalBike, has sent a letter to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission (CTC), asking them to move with greater urgency to meet California’s transportation-related climate goals. Under SB 375, which became law in 2008, state and regional planning agencies must pursue sustainable communities strategies, which coordinate land use and transportation planning, and include infill housing and access to public transit and active transportation. With the start of a new federal administration that’s actively hostile to climate change mitigation measures and green transportation, it’s incumbent on California to pick up the slack and move more aggressively toward our climate goals.

After the letter was written, the new administration stripped California of its ability to mandate a transition to EVs. Without that, the urgency to give Californians alternatives to driving is greater than ever.

California continues to invest in freeways instead of bikeways

California’s transportation budget continues to invest heavily in projects that increase traffic and congestion and drive us deeper into a climate hole that’s decimating our state. The Active Transportation Program (ATP), the only dedicated fund for biking, walking, and transit infrastructure, receives a small fraction of the funding dedicated to highway expansion.

The ATP has been the target of repeated attempts to claw back funds while money to build new freeways remained untouched. The program has to turn away more projects than it funds in each two-year cycle.

The ATP isn’t the only source for active transportation funding, but as CalBike’s Incomplete Streets investigation showed, Caltrans has often shortchanged bikeways and sidewalks, claiming there wasn’t enough funding to build them into maintenance projects on state-controlled streets.

With the passage of the Complete Streets Law in 2024, we hope to see more robust investment in making California’s state routes welcoming and safe for people using all modes of transportation. Planners and engineers assume that because most people drive, most people want to get around by car, but the truth is that there is pent-up demand for active transportation. Research shows that building safe bikeways leads to more bicycle traffic, and cities like Copenhagen and Paris show what’s possible.

California must act now

It’s hard to know how big a disaster must be to convince Americans, even Californians, that climate change is an imminent threat requiring immediate action. Perhaps the horror and devastation of the LA fires will be a tipping point. But our human inclination is to return to life as usual. Humans distrust change and often instinctively oppose it.

So we need our elected officials to lead the way. We need serious, major investments in active transportation and public transit. We need climate-conscious planning from statewide and regional agencies.

The signers of the letter include environmental, health, and housing advocacy groups, as well as biking and walking coalitions, and more. This intersectional group is a strong coalition to stand up for reducing driving, removing freeways, and giving urban and rural residents safe, clean, convenient transportation options.

Read the letter.

Accelerate Transpo Emissions Reduction 20250121 Download

What Is the Best Way to Prioritize the Safety of Vulnerable Road Users?

January 22, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

In recent years, the number of pedestrians and bicyclists killed and seriously injured on roadways in California has steadily increased. The U.S. is now an outlier among developed nations in the rate of road deaths, and California has the highest total number of pedestrian deaths.

Vulnerable road users (VRUs) are people on our roads and sidewalks who don’t have the protection of a vehicle’s cage to keep them safe. This includes people walking, biking, riding scooters and skateboards, using mobility aids, and traveling by horseback.

As long as we prioritize the desires of car and truck drivers at the expense of others in our transportation systems, people walking and biking will continue to be disproportionately injured and killed on our shared roads. Here are some policy changes that could help make our streets safer for everyone.

Varied paths to VRU safety

There are lots of ways to make our streets safer for people outside of motor vehicles. Infrastructure is at the top of the list, but changing our streets scan be costly and time-consuming. While a project moves slowly through the planning process, more people die. CalBike is working on a quick build bill this year that we hope will result in more Complete Streets, faster and at a lower cost.

Slowing speeds is another option, since vehicle speed is one of the main factors impacting the severity of VRU injuries in a crash. We have supported legislation to reduce speeds and better enforce existing speed limits.

Another way to protect VRUs is to recognize and define the vulnerable road user in our state statute, as many other states have already done.

What is a vulnerable road user law?

In 2007, Oregon became the first state to pass a vulnerable road user law, and at least 12 states — Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington — have since adopted similar laws. More states are also adding anti-harassment laws that penalize actions such as throwing objects at bicyclists and pedestrians from a moving vehicle.

VRU laws increase the penalties for drivers in a collision that results in the death or serious injury of someone outside a vehicle. They recognize the special care that people operating dangerous machines on shared streets should exercise toward those not encased in steel and moved by a powerful motor. The League of American Bicyclists has drafted model language for such laws.

The increase in VRU collisions prompted the U.S. Congress to mandate, through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), that all states complete a VRU Safety Assessment as part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). California’s assessment is very helpful in laying the groundwork for policy action to support VRUs.

Vulnerable road user laws and anti-harassment ordinances boost incentives for motorists to practice safe roadway behavior and deter unsafe behaviors around people walking and biking. They also increase opportunities for vulnerable road users to seek legal recourse after a crash. But do they work to prevent negligent driving that leads to collisions?

How effective are VRU ordinances?

In the last decade, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Sunnyvale, Sebastopol, and Santa Rosa have all adopted anti-harassment ordinances, which protect people on bicycles from “intentional threats, assaults, or harassment by motorists.”

The majority of vulnerable road user laws and anti-harassment ordinances provide increased fines and civil liability in cases where a person walking or biking is injured or killed because of negligent or intentional motorist behavior. Under most vulnerable road user laws or anti-harassment ordinances, bicyclists can bring a lawsuit against a vehicle driver in civil court — which has a lesser burden of proof than criminal court — making it easier for bicyclists to get compensated for their injuries and damages.

It’s not clear if VRU laws have the intended effect of reducing crashes and improving the safety of people walking, biking, etc. We couldn’t find studies comparing before and after crash statistics in jurisdictions that have enacted increased penalties, perhaps because the trend is relatively recent. But a recent Washington Post article about a Virginia VRU law showed that it had rarely been used.

CalBike has campaigned to decriminalize things such as jaywalking, where enforcement tends to be disproportionately aimed at people who are low-income, unhoused, or BIPOC. There’s a danger that VRU laws could be applied with the same biases, disproportionately penalizing Black and Latino drivers.

In addition, fear of stiffer penalties could increase the number of hit-and-run crashes. This is already a problem — a AAA research brief states: “The number of hit-and-run fatalities has been increasing at an average rate of 7.2% per year since 2009. A large part of this increase has been in fatal crashes involving non-vehicle occupants, mostly pedestrians.” The chance of survival for a vulnerable road user hit by a car goes down the longer they wait before getting medical attention, so more hit-and-runs leads to more preventable fatalities.

But there’s one more issue to consider with VRU laws.

Driving a car shouldn’t be a license to kill

When you read about collisions, drivers are often praised for exercising basic human decency and not fleeing the scene after they crash into a human being or an object. Police often make excuses for driver negligence, except in the most extreme cases where there is an intent to harm, and often fail to charge drivers with any crime.

This puts motor vehicles in a special category. In fact, the California Penal Code recognizes three types of manslaughter: voluntary, involuntary, and vehicular. In describing vehicular manslaughter, the code states: “This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the driving of a vehicle punishable that is not a proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, or of the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner.”

You can’t be punished for murdering someone with your car unless you are committing an unlawful act. While drivers break traffic laws all the time by running lights, failing to stop at stop signs, and exceeding the speed limit, these crimes may be hard to prove.

One of the research papers we found is titled If You Want to Get Away With Murder, Use Your Car, and it’s true. We hold people operating heavy machines capable of traveling at high speeds to lower standards than anyone doing anything else. So a sense of justice could lean toward equalizing the penalties and removing the special classifications for vehicular manslaughter.

The definition of involuntary manslaughter in the California penal code is causing a death while committing a misdemeanor or “in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death.” A person can be charged with involuntary manslaughter if they are acting “without due caution and circumspection.” In other words, if you aren’t breaking the law in any other way but you accidentally kill someone, you may be charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you’re working on your roof, let a 2 x 4 fall into the street, and it hits your neighbor and kills them, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter. You didn’t mean to do it, but you are responsible.

There’s a third category of manslaughter in the California code: vehicular. If you aren’t otherwise breaking the law in your car and you accidentally kill someone, you cannot be charged with vehicular manslaughter. For example, if someone is driving the speed limit in a truck with a grille so tall they don’t see a child in the crosswalk and run the child over, they are not guilty of vehicular manslaughter and are unlikely to be otherwise held to account.

Drivers are allowed to hit pedestrians they don’t see with impunity. It’s a legal position that normalizes the thousands of deaths on U.S. roads every year, letting drivers off with a small fine for failures of attention that cause life-changing injuries or death.

Would increased liability lead to more responsible driver behavior? It’s unclear. We certainly need to prioritize street designs that reduce speed and provide safer infrastructure for people walking and riding bikes. The question is how we reduce the carnage on our streets until we are able to make those changes.

California’s Transportation Budget Must Prioritize Green Transportation

January 10, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Jared Sanchez, jared@calbike.org, (714)262-0921

CalBike: California’s Transportation Budget Must Prioritize Green Transportation

Sacramento — CalBike applauds Governor Gavin Newsom for leaving funding intact for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) in his proposed budget, after two years of steep cuts. The ATP is the state’s only dedicated funding source for infrastructure that supports biking, walking, and public transit.

However, the governor’s budget doesn’t go far enough and preserves backward-facing investments that bake in decades of warmer temperatures and climate catastrophes. To have a realistic chance of mitigating the multiple disasters California faces due to climate chaos, we must stop investing in old ways of moving goods and people and reimagine our transportation systems.

The last budget cut two-thirds of the ATP budget, giving the California Transportation Commission(CTC) only enough funding to approve the top 13 projects out of dozens of worthy applications for grants. This budget should restore the $400 million taken from the ATP, allowing CTC to greenlight more green transportation infrastructure projects.

But that isn’t enough. The ATP is chronically underfunded, slowing the pace of California’s transition to a state that prioritizes safe passage for people using low- and no-carbon transportation options. CalBike is asking the legislature to double ATP funding going forward.

“The Active Transportation Program represents a tiny fraction of California’s transportation expenditures, yet it delivers powerful benefits for climate change mitigation,” says Jared Sanchez, CalBike’s policy director. “You can build a bike lane, upgrade a sidewalk, or add a bus-only lane for a fraction of the cost to build and maintain highway lanes. California should be investing much more in infrastructure like bicycle highways and connected biking and walking networks to make our communities healthier and safer from the ravages of climate disasters.”

State highway money (perhaps $1B) continues to build climate-killing roadways that increase traffic, fail to mitigate congestion, and work in opposition to the state’s climate goals. We must begin to shift our transportation spending to carbon-neutral options if we are to have any hope of stopping or reversing climate change.

New Studies Show No Downsides for Bicycle Safety Stop

January 9, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

Since Idaho passed its “Idaho stop” law in 1982, people on bikes have been treating stop signs as yields without any negative effects on traffic safety. As more states continue to pass similar laws, studies showing the benefits of the bike stop-as-yield, or Bicycle Safety Stop, accumulate. The latest is a pair of studies demonstrating that drivers and bike riders can easily and safely navigate intersections where the people on bikes treat stop signs as yields and that perception of the safety stop is positive or neutral, even among the car driving population.

Simulated stop-as-yield

The first study, headed by researchers from Oregon State University, placed participants in a simulator that had bike riders and car drivers navigating intersections where people on bikes were allowed to treat stop signs as yields. The study found no unsafe behavior from the bike riders and no difficulties in sharing the road from those operating motor vehicles. The study concluded that stop-as-yield laws would work better if states included information about them in driver handbooks — something even Idaho does not do. The authors recommend more education and outreach so road users in all modes understand stop-as-yield for bike riders.

Of course, many people in cars also roll through stop signs when there are no other vehicles present; this is a common and logical behavior for all road users, though it carries different risks for people operating 2-ton machines. For bike riders, stop-as-yield is essential for efficient riding because it conserves the momentum lost when starting after coming to a complete stop. The first study also found that bike rider speed through intersections was higher, on average, when using the rolling stop, which can augment safety. This confirms other studies, such as one showing that conflicts between bike riders and car drivers at intersections went down 23% after the introduction of a stop-as-yield law in Delaware.

Bike riders roll for safety

The second study is a literature review by researchers from Gonzaga University in Washington State, the University of Idaho, and Oregon State University — all states with stop-as-yield laws. The research looked at surveys of public opinions as well as expert input on intersection safety.

One data point that jumps out is an Idaho survey of road users in all modes about why they broke traffic rules. Among bike riders, 95.9% reported breaking a traffic law, but 97.9% of pedestrians and 99.97% of drivers said they did the same. The most common reason for flouting the law among drivers (85%) and pedestrians (71%) was saving time. However, people on bikes most commonly skirted traffic regulations for their own safety (71%). This data highlights the inaccuracy of perceptions among an unfriendly segment of the driving public that bike riders are lawbreaking road anarchists.

Again, this study finds a need for better public education so people driving and biking can share the road safely.

What happened to the California Bicycle Safety Stop?

CalBike has been heavily involved in campaigning for laws to legalize bicycle stop-as-yield over the past several years, and we haven’t given up on this important advancement in bicycle safety. Unfortunately, it looks unlikely that we’ll find a champion for this bill in the legislature this year. The current panic about e-bike safety (spurred by the proliferation of electric motorcycles illegally sold as e-bikes) makes the bicycle safety stop much less likely to garner attention and support. And we may need to wait for a new governor, since Gavin Newsom has vetoed a Bicycle Safety Stop Bill in the past and seems unlikely to approve one in the future.

CalBike has heard from advocates in Nevada who are working on a bill to legalize stop-as-yield this year, and we wish them luck. The more states that adopt this sensible regulation, the greater the evidence becomes that it improves street safety rather than impairing it. We hope California will join its neighbors in enacting this legislation in the near future.

CalBike Insider: Statewide Bike/Walk Advisory Committee Weighs in on Complete Streets

January 9, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike does a lot of high-profile advocacy, winning big improvements for active transportation such as the Complete Streets Law and the Daylighting Law. But we also spend a lot of time deep in the weeds, sitting on state advisory boards and committees that shape agency policies and the ways that new laws are implemented. Sometimes we’re helping develop the process for a new law we helped pass; in other cases, our administrative work influences policies for biking and walking separate from the legislative process.

Our agency work is never glamorous and can be frustrating at times because of the slow pace of change. But it’s as essential to moving California’s transportation future toward biking, walking, and transit as our legislative work. Here’s a look behind the curtain at a recent meeting of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (CWBTAC).

What is a technical advisory committee?

The CWBTAC is an advisory body to Caltrans, and includes representatives from statewide advocacy groups like CalBike, representatives from city and county governments and transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, consultants, and other state agencies. Membership is open periodically by application and includes geographic, topic area, and sector goals. Quarterly meetings are closed to the public.

CalBike has been a member of the CWBTAC since it was formed in 2018 and was on the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, which the CWBTAC replaced, before that. We communicate regularly with Caltrans administrators during committee meetings such as this and in one-on-one meetings. Representing the concerns and needs of the bicycling community to Caltrans officials has been one of CalBike’s core functions since our founding 30 years ago.

Caltrans workshops implementation of new Complete Streets law

The most recent CWBTAC meeting convened shortly before Thanksgiving, and the main topic on the agenda was Caltrans’ implementation of the recently passed Complete Streets Law, SB 960.

Caltrans presented an overview of the process to ensure the infrastructure needs of people who get around by biking, walking, or taking transit are considered as the agency plans new maintenance projects and outlined the types of public engagement that occur at each stage of the project development process. The meeting then went into breakout groups, during which time participants shared ideas on how Caltrans should implement the Complete Streets law (SB 960). CalBike shared ideas on outreach to bring voices from disadvantaged communities into the discussion and how to create a process that doesn’t allow the desires of car drivers to overrule the interests of vulnerable road users.

Advisory bodies like the CWBTAC provide an opportunity for direct engagement and conversation with Caltrans and other agency staff. These meetings are an opportunity for CalBike to share the bicyclist’s perspective with not only Caltrans but also the local, regional, and statewide agencies and stakeholders that participate.

We will continue to work on Complete Streets implementation, both in large discussion settings and smaller meetings with Caltrans staffers, in the year ahead. The legislative session is barely getting started, but CalBike is already hard at work to make state roadways safer for everyone.