February 2025 - CalBike

CalBike Virtual Summit Session Highlights Active Transportation Funding Sources

February 28, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

On February 20, 2025, CalBike held the first in a series of virtual Summit Sessions, a quarterly webinar series continuing the groundbreaking discussions of the California Bicycle Summit throughout the year. Over 150 people attended the webinar, Creative Approaches to Funding Active Transportation Infrastructure, where a panel of speakers shared diverse resources municipalities can use to fund biking and walking infrastructure.

Thinking outside the ATP

The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is California’s only dedicated funding source for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. The program disburses grants in two-year cycles, funded through federal and state sources including Senate Bill 1 gas tax funds. The program is consistently oversubscribed and only able to award the highest-scoring projects, demonstrating the need for additional funding sources for active transportation projects.

California Transportation Commission Deputy Director for Traditional Programming Laurie Waters gave a high-level overview of six programs beyond the ATP:

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
Local Streets and Roads Program
Local Partnership Program
Solutions for Congested Corridors

For each program, Waters outlined the amount of funding available, what percentage of it is competitive versus granted to agencies based on a distribution formula, the types of projects typically funded, and the name of the program manager at CTC. Her slides are below. Relevant to the discussion, CalBike won a major victory in 2024 with the passage of the Complete Streets Law, which will increase active transportation and transit improvements in SHOPP projects in coming years.

Waters CalBike Funding Presentation New.pptx Download

Housing + active transportation

Brianne Logasa, an associate planner with the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC), and Marc Caswell, an advisor with SGC, presented on Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding for transportation projects. AHSC receives 20% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, with revenue generated through California’s Cap and Trade program.

The minimum grant through AHSC is $10 million, with transportation projects capped at $15 million. A typical project might include infill affordable housing, park space, sidewalks and paths, and bikeways. This funding can be used for a range of amenities beyond sidewalks and bike lanes, including bike racks, wayfinding, lighting, and bike racks on buses.

Local agencies can partner with developers to implement active transportation elements in coordination with new housing development. By pairing sustainable transportation with infill housing, AHSC is an effective way to combat climate change. This program rewards projects with a bold vision for transforming neighborhoods.

The slides from this presentation are below.

AHSC-General-Calbike2025 Download

Alternative funding on the street in San Diego

Omar Atayee, a principal engineer with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), presented on the Imperial Avenue Bikeway Project, which was funded in part by an AHSC grant. He broke down the elements of this ambitious San Diego project covering more than three miles of a major urban street.

The foundation for the project was SANDAG’s regional bike plan, with Imperial Avenue as a connection on its regional bikeway network. Atayee walked through the multiple funding sources the agency used to secure funding for the project and the partnerships that made the project work. The Imperial Avenue Bikeway provides a real-world example of the types of transformative projects that can be funded through a combination of sources, including AHSC.

The slides from his presentation are below.

02-20-2025 Cal Bike Summit Sessions Program (SANDAG)Download

Green transportation programs through CARB

Joey Juhasz-Lukomski, a program manager at the Shared Use Mobility Center, a nonprofit that works with the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) to implement several sustainable transportation funding programs, including the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) program. CMO Grants allow up to $100,000 for needs assessments to ensure SANDAG was using the funding where it was most needed.

Projects can include up to $1.8 million for capital costs and four years of operations for bikeshare, car share, and other mobility pilot programs.

Juhasz-Lukomski also talked about funding through the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP), also funded through CARB. STEP offers grant funding for things like zero-emissions transit, bike lanes, bikeshare, infrastructure, education, and tree planting. At least one community benefit organization (CBO) or local or tribal government needs to be part of every STEP project.

At the moment, no additional rounds of funding for CMO and STEP have been secured, but the state transportation budget could provide additional rounds if legislators see value in these programs. Juhasz-Lukomski’s slides are below.

CalBike_CMOSTEP_slides_2025.2.18_JJL.pptx Download

The California Bicycle Summit is a biennial gathering of advocates, planners, and thought leaders in the active transportation movement.

Watch the webinar.

CalBike’s 2025 Legislative Agenda

February 25, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

The deadline to submit legislation in Sacramento has passed, so we have a preliminary look at CalBike’s legislative agenda. Despite new limits on the number of bills each legislator can submit, there are many bills of interest to people who care about active transportation and safer streets.

Some of the bills we expect to support (or oppose) have been filed but the specific language is still in the development stage, so we’ve put them on our watch list for now. We’ll provide updates as bill provisions become clearer.

Here are the bills CalBike is sponsoring, supporting, or monitoring at the very beginning of the legislative session.

CalBike sponsors bills for better bike infrastructure, e-bike classification

CalBike is sponsoring or co-sponsoring three bills we think will bring significant positive changes to California streets and make our shared spaces safer for vulnerable road users.

Caltrans Quick-Build Pilot (AB 891, Zbur): Quick-build allows public agencies to respond quickly to unsafe road conditions by adding paint, planter boxes, soft-hit bollards, and other inexpensive infrastructure for bicycle and pedestrian safety. This bill would establish the Quick-Build Project Pilot Program within Caltrans, allowing the agency to implement more Complete Streets on state-controlled roadways without a yearslong planning and funding process. Many local governments already use quick-build to test new bikeways and other active transportation infrastructure; this will allow the same safety interventions on the state routes that serve as local main streets or popular bike routes.

Bicycle Highways Bill (AB 954, Bennett): California has a highway system for motor vehicles, so why not an interconnected network of separated bikeways that allow for safe, fast bicycle transportation? This bill would create a pilot program at Caltrans. It’s an excellent step toward making the bike an appealing and convenient transportation option for more Californians.

Illegal E-Motorcycle Classification (SB 455, Blakespear): Much of the concern about e-bikes on California streets is actually about electric motorcycles and mopeds illegally marketed as e-bikes and often sold to underaged riders. Selling e-motorcycles as e-bikes allows sellers to circumvent California regulations about registration and licensing and puts unsuspecting buyers at risk. The language of the bill is still being written, but the author’s intent is to clarify state regulations, remove gray areas, and specify penalties for violations.

CalBike’s active transportation slate

We’re starting the session with five excellent bills in our active transportation slate. Look for more bills to be added to this slate.

School Streets Bill (AB 382, Berman): For now, this bill is a placeholder with provisions to be added. If it’s similar to Berman’s 2024 school zone safety bill, it will clarify and strengthen regulations to keep students safe from traffic violence as they walk into school. We look forward to working with our partners and the sponsor as this bill evolves.

Caltrans Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (AB 1132, Schiavo): Extreme weather events, made more frequent by climate change, impact California’s transportation systems. Highway 1 has repeatedly been shut down by slides in Northern California, as were train tracks in Southern California. Fires in Paradise and Los Angeles showed the vulnerability of our escape routes. This bill requires Caltrans to identify what makes communities resilient to climate-caused transportation disruptions. It’s an excellent first step toward making all California communities more climate resilient.

Remove Bikeway Roadblocks Bill (SB 71, Wiener): Green transportation champion Senator Scott Wiener is building on his past work to make it easier to build transit and active transportation projects. California’s CEQA environmental review law has been used to stall the building of bikeways and the adoption of bike plans. In recognition of the fact that public transit, biking, and walking have positive environmental impacts, this seeks to make a current temporary CEQA exemption permanent.

Sustainable Transportation Permitting (SB 445, Wiener): Climate disasters are accelerating; we must accelerate our responses. One of the best antidotes to climate change is providing no-carbon transportation options. To that end, this bill speeds up the permitting and construction of sustainable transportation projects. It will have the additional benefit of allowing communities to fix dangerous roadways more quickly, thus reducing the heavy toll of traffic violence.

Safe Crossings Save Lives (SB 671, Cervantes): This bill would beef up requirements for walk signals to make them more pedestrian-friendly. One of the most important provisions is a requirement for the state to inventory the status of existing pedestrian signals. This will show which intersections aren’t using the latest technology or programmed for maximum pedestrian safety; it will highlight where funding and maintenance are needed and improve safety at intersections.

Bills we’re watching

There are a number of bills that could get added to CalBike’s support list once their provisions are clearer, and some we might oppose. In addition to the bills listed below, we are watching several bills that we don’t have all the details about. Check our Legislative Watch page for updates as we learn more.

State highway work zone speed safety program (AB 289, Haney): Establishes a speed enforcement system through Caltrans.
E-bike reflector requirement (AB 544, Davies): This bill would require e-bikes to have a rear red reflector or light visible at 500 feet at all times of day.
E-bike clarification (AB 545, Davies): Further clarification of the definition of an e-bike to include fully operable pedals and a motor that can’t exceed 750 watts.
Highway Design Manual: Increase Fire Department authority (AB 612, Rogers): This bill would give local fire departments greater say in active transportation improvements.
Illegal Electric Motorcycles (AB 875, Muratsuchi): The illegal e-motorcycle bill CalBike is sponsoring clarifies the regulations differentiating e-bikes from motorcycles. This bill invites police officers to confiscate e-motorcycles, which could lead to disproportionate enforcement against BIPOC Californians.
The Safe, Sustainable, Traffic-Reducing Transportation Bond Act of 2026 (AB 939, Schultz): This bill would put a $20 billion state bond on the 2026 ballot. The money would be divided among a range of transportation projects, including active transportation and micromobility. We’re looking forward to more details about where the funds would go.
Higher fines for minors not wearing helmets (AB 965, Dixon): This bill is exactly what the name says.
E-bike Disclosure for Parents and Minors (AB 968, Boerner): This bill would add a requirement that e-bike manufacturers and distributors include a warning about risks and responsibilities if a minor operates the bike.
Intelligent Speed Assistance for Dangerous Drivers (AB 981, Gipson): The governor vetoed the bill we cosponsored to add ISA to all new cars in California. This would require people convicted of reckless driving offenses to install the system in their cars.
Caltrans Slower Streets (AB 1014, Rogers): A bill to lower speed limits on state highways.
Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 (AB 1243, Addis): This bill would put a price on damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions and require emitters to pay into a superfund program administered by CalEPA.
Regional housing needs and transportation plans (AB 1275, Elhawary): This bill would move California toward integration of housing and transportation plans to build more housing near transit, jobs, schools, etc.
San Francisco Bay Area Local Revenue Measure (SB 63, Wiener/Arreguin): This is a third try at authorizing legislation to develop a predictable operational revenue source to ensure the future of Bay Area transit providers.
Study for road and safety improvements (SB 78, Seyarto): A Caltrans study to identify high-collision spots and projects to improve safety at those locations.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (SB 220, Allen): Updates rules about membership on the board of directors of LA Metro.
EMotos (SB 586, Jones): Yet another bill targeting the proliferation of two-wheeled electric vehicles, this one creates an eMoto category of off-road vehicles.
Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 (SB 684, Menjivar): The senate counterpart of Assembly Bill 1243 (see above).

We will undoubtedly add, remove, and move bills on this list. CalBike’s Legislative Watch page has the most up-to-date information. Subscribe to CalBike’s newsletter for regular updates on the most crucial bills for active transportation and periodic reassessments of the status of all the bills we’re supporting or watching.

Bikeway Removals Must Stop

February 25, 2025/by Laura McCamy

Mary Daval from Culver City and Michael Swire from San Mateo contributed to this post.

Getting approval and funding to build new bikeways can be an uphill battle. However, once a lane or bike path is approved and installed and people get to experience enhanced safety and traffic calming for all road users, it’s rare for cities to take bike lanes out. Unfortunately, two California cities may be doing just that.

“When they go low, we go local” in Culver City

In 2021, Culver City got funding from a Metro Active Transportation (MAT) grant to help fund a project called Move Culver City. The stated goal of the project was to “create mobility options for everyone.” The project removed a lane of car traffic from Culver Boulevard and added a dedicated bus lane and a bike lane.

In 2023, a new city council voted to modify the project to add back the removed car lane. They accomplished this by taking out the protected bike lane and creating a shared bike and bus lane, a solution that negates gains for both biking and transit.

The ostensible reason for ripping out the bike lanes and increasing car space was congestion. Now that the removal is complete in what officials call Move 2.0, local advocates report that congestion is just as bad during peak hours and drivers move at freeway speeds during off-peak times.

Culver City advocate Mary Daval said, “We’re so far from Vision Zero. We’re so far from safe streets. We know terrible things have happened on the Move corridor.”

The MAT grant could be reduced by around $500,000 if Culver City maintains the project in its current configuration without protected bike lanes. However, residents recently elected a new city council that’s more friendly to active transportation. Since the project is a quick build, advocates hope that the original configuration can be restored. They are looking for crash and traffic data to point the way to an evidence-based plan for safer streets.

Local advocates aren’t giving up, despite a federal administration that is unfriendly to active transportation, citing a Culver City saying: “When they go low, we go local.”

Pedaling backward in San Mateo

San Mateo’s City Council recently decided to pursue removal of half a mile of separated bike lanes on Humboldt Street. The bike lanes offer greater safety for people biking and walking on a street known as one of the least safe in the city for vulnerable road users. The bike lanes provide access to multiple schools serving 6,000+ students and were paid for with a federal grant. Humboldt is in an equity-priority neighborhood, with almost 20% of residents unable to afford the high cost of auto ownership.

San Mateo could spend up to $3 million to rip out these bike lanes — money that could have been better spent on the dozens of projects that remain on hold in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. It’s sad that there is never enough money (at the state or local level) to build bikeways, but there is always funding to expand car storage.

There is still time to save the San Mateo bike lanes. You can sign the petition and contact Move San Mateo to find out how to get involved.

Bike advocate Mike Swire told CalBike: “We are extremely disappointed in the San Mateo City Council’s decision to potentially spend millions of taxpayer dollars to rip out critical safety infrastructure next to several schools, in an Equity Priority Area where 20% of residents don’t own cars and the streets have the highest crash rates in the city.”

Swire added, “Meanwhile, San Mateo just saw its third vulnerable road user die in the past five months. Why should free car storage on public streets take priority over safety for those who bike and walk to get around?”

CalBike supports advocates in their efforts to save these critical bike lanes. While most of our work is at the state level, we sometimes partner with local advocacy groups to provide support on issues of statewide significance. We hope removing bikeways doesn’t become a trend across California.

CalBike Insider: From State Law to Local Implementation

February 19, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

CalBike’s work may seem removed from local efforts to build safer streets, but state laws have very real and direct — though sometimes invisible — effects on local infrastructure. In this Insider, we take a look at how state laws filter down to the local level and the real-world impacts of some laws CalBike helped pass.

Changing state law

Getting a bill through any legislative body has been compared to sausage-making. It’s a messy process, and what starts out as a strong bill can be weaker or even counterproductive by the time the legislative subcommittees get through with it. CalBike works with bill authors and other advocacy groups to influence the process and maintain language that preserves the original intent of the bill as much as possible.

Not all changes in committee are counter to a bill’s intent. Some may clarify confusing language, making it easier to implement. At times, a bill’s language could even become stronger. However, even if the final bill signed into law doesn’t have all the provisions CalBike would have liked at the outset, it can still make a significant difference.

For example, the Complete Streets Law signed by the governor gives Caltrans more leeway than we would have liked to avoid including biking and walking infrastructure in repair projects. But that doesn’t change the impact of the bill, which showed strong and broad support for streets that work for all modes of transportation. Caltrans is taking it seriously, and CalBike continues to engage with the agency’s implementation efforts.

Changes at the local level

A new law is only as effective as its implementation. A 2023 law allowing several cities to pilot automated speed enforcement has been slow to get started; San Francisco is just now installing its first speed cameras, which will become operational next month. It could be several years before it becomes clear what role automated speed enforcement can play in making our streets safer.

This is not uncommon. Local governments often need time to make implementation plans and develop new local regulations, if needed. Another example of this is the 2014 law CalBike sponsored that added separated, on-street bikeways to California’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD is a go-to reference for planning and public works departments, and many local governments were reluctant to install this protective bike infrastructure unless it was in the MUTCD.

For CalBike, passing the law wasn’t the end of our work. Although the law went into effect in 2015, we created a brochure to introduce protected bike lanes to local governments in 2016. In 2018, we conducted a webinar about why cities should include separated lanes when building on-street bikeways. We also advised on the development of the guidance produced by Caltrans, the Design Information Bulletin 89, which informs Caltrans and local agency staff on how to properly design this facility.

In the 10 years since the original law was passed, protected bikeways have become the gold standard for on-street bike infrastructure. It took time for local governments to understand the concept and incorporate it into their plans (like this recent draft City of San Diego Street Design Manual, which features protected bikeway design on page 94), but that statewide law has had a big impact.

Changing the way we think about our streets

Another reason new state laws can take time to filter down to the local level is that many new laws include stepped or delayed implementation schedules. For example, the Daylighting Saves Lives Law, which CalBike helped pass in 2023, had a two-step implementation. The law went into effect in 2024, but people couldn’t be ticketed for parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk until 2025.

At the beginning of this year, municipalities can ticket people parked too close to a crosswalk, whether the curb is painted red or not. However, local enforcement and ticketing are likely to vary among communities, and some drivers may be unaware of the new law. However, now that the law is in full effect, local governments are starting to paint red curbs and issue parking tickets. It may take time for leaving clear space for visibility around crosswalks to become common practice across California, but this law will save more lives each year as implementation grows.

Taking Action in a Time of Overwhelm

February 19, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

Like many of you, CalBike’s staff has watched federal changes unfolding in recent weeks with a sense of disbelief and dismay. Bicycling is a crucial part of our transportation system, and while we have a long way to go, recent years have brought progress and added bikeways that benefit all of our communities. Like you, we’ve scrambled to figure out what federal changes will mean for ourselves, our friends and neighbors, and the communities we care about.

So much has changed so fast, it’s hard to know what to do. Organizations working at the federal level are tracking and analyzing the statements and orders coming out of Washington; you can find a thorough analysis from Transportation for America here. Concrete actions will become clearer over time, but we’ve compiled a list of things you can do to continue all of our work to make California more livable.

Stay the course

Everything you cared about last year is still something you can work to impact today. Perhaps in the current climate, state-level advocacy would be more effective than national. Perhaps where you live, working at the local level to make changes block by block will have the most significant impact.

Support the efforts of advocates doing the work you care about

The advocacy organizations that have been working locally and regionally for years are still there, still doing good work, and more necessary than ever. If you haven’t already, join your local bicycle coalition. Join CalBike. Volunteer at a bike kitchen to help people with DIY repairs. Join other local, regional, or national groups doing work you care about and support them with money, time, or both.

Adopt a local project

If the new administration succeeds in withholding funds already committed for transportation projects, local projects you counted on in your community that have been in the works for years may be halted. Transportation for America has developed several spreadsheets outlining the potential loss of funds associated with the elimination of key transportation funding sources in the “What you can do” section of this article.

For individuals and local advocacy groups who are concerned, adopt a project and provide public support. Go to city council and bike/pedestrian advisory committee meetings. Educate yourself about the constraints your local government is working under, find out what you can do to help, and make calls to your members of Congress to ask them to protect transportation funding.

For local, regional, and state agency staff who have projects with funding in question, Lawyers for Good Government has a Guidance Brief on protecting federal funding and a fund protection clinic offering legal assistance to agencies with funds in jeopardy.

Work in community

Whatever the scale, wherever you live, there are people out there ready to provide mutual support. If you aren’t already plugged in, find a group to work with. Whether you join CalBike and your local bike coalition, a local Strong Towns chapter organizing using social media, or your neighborhood association’s transportation committee, find others to work with so you can amplify each other and make a difference in your community. We are stronger together, and working together is how we continue our momentum, even on the current hill we are climbing. the current hill we are climbing.

Keep calm and pedal on

Taking care of your mental and physical well-being can feel selfish in a time of widespread uncertainty, but it’s essential. You have to put the oxygen mask on yourself before you can help others. So go on a ride with friends. Get out in nature. Play with your kids. Throw a ball for a dog. Nurture what sparks joy in you and others.

Then get up tomorrow and do your part to preserve and improve your community

CalBike Insider: Updating the MUTCD to Comply with New Law

February 4, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

If the headline didn’t lose you at “MUTCD,” welcome! CalBike often works deep in the weeds, sitting on advisory committees and wrangling with state agencies over policy changes that may seem minor or arcane but have significant impact on our safe biking and walking.

One example of this is an update to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. California’s MUTCD is akin to the Bible for state and local planners and public works departments. It lays out allowable road treatments and can frustrate bicycle advocates when it’s used as a reason not to implement the latest guidance on safe biking and walking infrastructure.

However slowly, the MUTCD does get updated with better practices, such as when CalBike passed a law legalizing protected bikeways. Before the 2014 law, few municipalities were willing to install physically separated bike lanes because they weren’t in the MUTCD and cities feared legal liability.

In 2024, CalBike supported AB 1216, which prohibits the installation of, as well as state funding for, Class III bikeways on high-speed streets. A Class III bikeway is a route featuring a shared lane for bike riders and car drivers, sometimes indicated with sharrow markings. The passage of that law triggered an update to the MUTCD.

As a member of the California Walk and Bike Technical Advisory Committee (known by the lovely acronym CWBTAC), CalBike is helping shape the language for new street design guidance that directs communities not to put shared lane markings on streets with speed limits greater than 30 mph. It’s a small thing and pretty technical. But we hope that removing the option to slap some sharrows in the roadway and call it a bikeway will force local governments and Caltrans to design better, safer routes for people who get around by bike.

Two more studies show stop-as-yield works. Why isn’t there a bill in California?

February 3, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

A few weeks ago, we wrote about two studies showing bicycle safety stop, or stop-as-yield, laws are safe for all road users. Another study released in December 2024 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has come to the same conclusion. And yet another study from researchers at UC Berkeley’s Institute for Traffic Studies found no correlation between crash risk and the implementation of stop-as-yield laws.

Stop-as-yield allows people riding bikes to treat stop signs as yields and roll through without coming to a complete stop if they have the right of way and there’s no other traffic. Many bike riders already do this because it’s a logical way to conserve momentum on a vehicle powered by human effort. Stop-as-yield laws codify this common way of riding, setting clear expectations for all road users and reducing conflicts at intersections. Since the first such law was passed in Idaho in 1982, stop-as-yield is often called the Idaho stop. Despite this long history elsewhere, stop-as-yield for bike riders remains illegal in California.

Validating the safety of stop-as-yield

The NHTSA study follows a fact sheet released by the agency in 2023 supporting the safety of stop-as-yield laws. The study analyzed crash records in urban areas in eight states where stop-as-yield is legal and used statistical models to estimate monthly crash rates.

NHTSA Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet_032123_v5_tag Download

The evidence showed that stop-as-yield laws correlated with lower crash rates and didn’t increase the number of crashes involving children. These laws don’t affect the severity of bike rider crash injuries. The study also showed that stop-as-yield laws don’t lead to more reckless behavior by bike riders and could lead to more people getting around by bike.

The researchers found that the built environment was a bigger factor in collisions involving bikes than socioeconomic factors. Safe infrastructure is essential to preventing bicyclist injuries and fatalities. However, the study found a disproportionate number of Black bike riders were crash victims, a finding that highlights the need for further research.

usdot_stop as yield study Download

The UC Berkeley study used similar data, parsing crash statistics to see if crash rates went up or down after stop-as-yield was legalized in several states and comparing that data with national and state crash trends. The research found that allowing bike riders to treat stop signs as yields didn’t affect safety one way or the other. Since it makes bike riding easier, that’s an argument in favor of stop-as-yield.

UC Berkeley Stop-as-Yield study Download

So, if stop-as-yield laws make bike riding more appealing and reduce crashes, why can’t California pass this law? It’s complicated.

California’s twisty road to bicycle safety

California has seen bills to legalize stop-as-yield or safety stop introduced several times, and the legislature passed it in 2021, but the governor vetoed it. This year, even as Nevada proposes a stop-as-yield law and other West Coast states have recently enacted similar laws, CalBike has not found a legislator interested in introducing a bill this session.

One of the factors that stopped California’s stop-as-yield bills has undoubtedly been concerns about rising rates of traffic violence. Despite mounting evidence showing the safety of these laws, it remains difficult to convince law enforcement and legislators that allowing bike riders to treat stop signs as yields won’t increase fatalities.

Another complicating issue in the last couple of years is the steep rise in the popularity of e-bikes and, unfortunately, illegal e-motorcycles marketed as e-bikes and sold to underage riders. That, coupled with driver-caused fatal crashes and the resulting anti-e-bike hysteria in several California cities, has led to a rising public perception that bike riders are reckless. Why would we want to give these dangerous lawbreakers free rein to run stop signs?

A final roadblock is Governor Gavin Newsom. After his first veto, the author ran the bill again and it looked likely to pass the legislature once again. She pulled it at the last minute, probably because of a threatened gubernatorial veto. We may have to wait for our next governor for stop-as-yield to become law in California.

However, you never know. We’ve seen Governor Newsom move from a veto one year to signing a bill the next. CalBike will continue to push for a California stop-as-yield law. We’ve seen how perceptions can change over time with continued education and campaigning, and we won’t give up on this worthy cause.