2026 Agenda Reveal, Recap, and Q&A
CalBike’s 2026 Agenda Reveal looked back at hard-won gains on Complete Streets and funding, then made the case for what comes next: billions for bikes, sane e-bike rules, real answers to traffic violence, and a 2026 Bicycle Summit that turns that agenda into action.
Here are responses to the questions submitted that we didn’t get a chance to answer during the webinar:
Q: I want to see drivers who use their car horns to startle or harass or worse to bicyclists aggressively arrested and charged with appropriate offense and fined for such activity, which I perceive as a very real threat to biker safety.
A: Thanks for this recommendation. We agree this is frustrating. We have floated the idea of a statewide vulnerable road user law, which would create specific penalties for targeting bicyclists. Anti-harassment ordinances are also possible at the local level to punish the behavior you mentioned. Here is a bit more information including where they are adopted in CA.
Q: What lessons from your advocacy for Quick Build legislation can we use for local quick build project advocacy? We have a concept for a pilot El Camino Real bikeway project in Menlo Park.
A: Here is our Quick-Build Bikeway Networks for Safer Streets for a starting point.
Q: As a follow-up to the education issue. The biggest threat I feel when riding is uneducated drivers. Many folks simply don’t know what to do around bikes on the road. I have felt there is a need to strengthen the statewide drivers manual and license testing process. Is any work being done on this aspect of driver education?
A: We have been pursuing changing driver education to consider more vulnerable road users and the changes road users face to newer multi-modal street design. However there has been little interest from elected officials to champion this cause. Given the ongoing transformation of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), legislators may be sensitive to adding new requirements for drivers.
Q: Does CalBike have a policy perspective on e-scooters? Any differences from e-bikes?
A: We are supportive of legal and responsible use of micromobility, including e-scooters. We treat each separate device differently, given context and problem arising. We support the existing statute as it relates to e-scooters. We do primarily put our interest towards the bicycle, but advocate for the proliferation of safe and accessible use of all micromobility.
Q: Is there motion to create the “Engineers” handbook for informing municipalities about updated laws and how they can be implemented?
A: This is a great idea! We have a few Campaign ideas circulating focused on the general public, but this is a good addition to consider.
Q: Has there been a protected intersection design guideline in addition to DIB-94?
A: There haven’t been any additions to DIB-94 yet. Caltrans typically doesn’t open DIBs for revision for at least 2 years. They have been asked by California Walk Bike TAC for the opportunity to revise at the earliest opportunity.
Q: Can we get state legislation which increases the length of time that plaintiffs have to file suit against municipalities after a crash? Currently, there is a 6 month max. Many PDs, however, take >6 months to complete their investigations. This creates a conflict of interest where PDs can slow walk investigations in order to mitigate legal risk for the municipality. This is important as threat of litigation could be one of the primary tools to get cities to install more infrastructure and increase enforcement.
A: Thank you for the idea. We have several concepts around the legal system and bicyclist interaction after crashes that we are pursuing.
Q: What is the new study re: E-Bikes you mentioned? Is CalBike authoring this?
A: Mineta Transportation Institute is authoring it. More info here.
