Featured Archives

CalBike End-of-Session Legislative Recap 2023

September 21, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

California’s legislators are done for the year; now it’s up to Governor Gavin Newsom which bills become law and which get vetoed. Newsom has until October 14 to sign or veto bills. If he takes no action, the bill becomes law.

There are several noteworthy bills that will improve active transportation on the governor’s desk. We had some success in the budget, restoring money initially pulled from the ATP and ensuring funding to continue the e-bike incentive program. Since this is the first year of a two-year session, several measures became two-year bills, which means they’ll get debated again early next year. And quite a few excellent bills died in the legislature.

Dealing with the realities of California’s budget deficit forced lawmakers to make some tough decisions, particularly in matters regarding funding. Here’s a recap of everything that happened with bike-friendly bills in a bruising legislative session.

The Active Transportation Slate: Bills that sit with the governor

CalBike’s slate includes six excellent bills on the governor’s desk that will make biking safer, improve transit, study a vehicle weight fee, and increase Caltrans transparency.

AB 825 Bryan: Safe Passage for Bikes

The Safe Passage for Bikes Bill allows bicycle riding on a sidewalk adjacent to a street that does not include a Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway. As it made its way through the legislature, this bill was amended to overcome objections from cities that wanted more authority to regulate sidewalks, particularly in busy areas. The bill will take away a justification for traffic stops that may be racially biased and give people on bikes safer places to ride on dangerous streets with no bikeways. At the same time, it includes provisions to protect pedestrians and give them the right of way on sidewalks. AB 825 is a positive step toward decriminalization and bike rider safety, and we hope the governor signs it.

AB 413 Lee: Daylighting to Save Lives

The daylighting bill prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of any unmarked or marked crosswalk. Intersections are the most common sites of collisions involving people walking and biking. Though this measure has been amended to allow shorter daylighting in some places, we think this is a crucial measure that will improve safety by increasing visibility.

AB 645 Friedman: Automated Speed Enforcement

The Automated Speed Enforcement Bill establishes an automated speed safety pilot program in six jurisdictions: the cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco. Cities must give 30 days notice before the program starts, and tickets issued for the first 60 days will be warnings with no fines. Automated speed enforcement has been effective in other states, and it’s crucial to making our streets safer since speed is a major factor in collisions with serious injuries and fatalities. Assemblymember Laura Friedman has been trying to pass this measure for a few years; this is the first time it’s made it all the way through the legislature. The pilot cities are all eager to participate, and we hope the bill passes so we can get data on the usefulness of speed cameras on California streets.

AB 819 Bryan: Decriminalizing Transit Fare Evasion

This bill decriminalizes fare evasion by removing it as a misdemeanor classification. Riders can still be fined, but potential penalties wouldn’t include jail time. In our ideal world, public transit would be free and frequent, with no need for police to check fares. Unfortunately, our civic budget priorities won’t fund that at the moment, but AB 819 is a step in the right direction.

AB 251 Ward: Deadly Oversized Cars

The Deadly Oversized Cars Bill convenes a task force to study the relationship between vehicle weight and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists and to study the costs and benefits of imposing a passenger vehicle weight fee. If California adds a weight fee, it could serve as a disincentive for manufacturers and consumers to make and purchase heavier SUVs and light trucks.

SB 695 Gonzalez: Caltrans Freeway Data

This data transparency measure will require Caltrans to prepare and make available information and data about activities on the state highway system on a public portal. It seems wonky, but having more visibility into Caltrans projects is crucial for advocates like CalBike because it will make it much easier to direct our efforts where they will have the most impact.

Two bills we’re watching also made it through the legislative process. SB 381 would initiate a study of e-bike safety. We support this idea if it looks at how to keep e-bike riders (and all people on bikes) safe on our streets and bikeways, but we’re concerned it could be another piece of the current e-bike panic that unfairly blames electric bikes for causing cars to crash into them. SB 538 would require Caltrans to appoint a bike czar to oversee all things bike-related at the agency. We think everyone at Caltrans should understand bike-friendly planning rather than leaving it to one person to advocate for better bikeways within the agency.

What is a two-year bill?

Every odd-numbered year is the first year of the two-year legislative session in California. Bills introduced in odd years have three paths: become law, die in the legislature or get vetoed by the governor, or become a two-year bill. Two-year bills must pass their house of origin by January 31 of the following year.

There are many reasons authors may choose to make measures into two-year bills. They may need more time to build support to pass a committee or floor vote, the bill may need more time to be amended, or the political climate wasn’t favorable this session but might be better next year.

Here are all the bills CalBike supported that became two-year bills:

Regional Prioritization for Clean Transportation (AB 6, Friedman): Requires regional transportation agencies to prioritize and fund transportation projects that significantly contribute toward regional and state climate goals
Project Selection Process (AB 7, Friedman): Requires state transportation agencies to incorporate environmental and equity principles into their project selection process
Bicycle Safety Stop (AB 73, Boerner Horvath): Legalizes stop-as-yield for bike riders aged 18 or older
Cars Blocking Bike Lanes (AB 361, Ward): Authorizes cities to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned parking enforcement vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in bicycle lanes
Free Transit for Youth (AB 610, Holden): Establishes pilot program that provides grants to transit agencies for the costs of creating and implementing free youth transit passes to persons attending certain educational institutions
Transit Transformation Task Force (AB 761, Friedman): Establishes a Transit Transformation Task Force to develop policies to grow transit ridership and improve the transit experience for all users
Tenancy & Micromobility (SB 712, Portantino): Prohibits a landlord from prohibiting a tenant from owning a personal micromobility device or from storing a personal micromobility device in their dwelling unit unless the landlord provides secure, long-term storage for those devices.

Bills that didn’t make it

Six bills CalBike supported died in the legislature. We discuss two in more detail below. All are excellent measures that we hope to see return in some form in a future session.

The Equity-First Transportation Funding Act (AB 1525, Bonta): This bill would have prioritized transit funding for historically underserved communities. It’s a good way to begin to correct the harms of decades of underfunded streets and punitive urban planning.
Highway Pilot Projects to Reduce Emissions (AB 981, Friedman): This would have required Caltrans to complete 10 pilot highway maintenance and rehabilitation demonstration projects that would have resulted in significantly reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
California Bike Smart Safety Handbook (AB 1188, Boerner Horvath): A requirement for the DMV to create a bicycle handbook died in Appropriations in a tight budget year.
No More Warrants for Infractions (AB 1266, Kalra): Eliminating the use of bench warrants for minor infractions would have reduced the temperature of traffic stops that can sometimes become lethal.

Measures to make policing less biased and more effective failed in 2023

Traffic policing is often aimed more at crime prevention than curbing traffic violence, and, as a result, it’s not effective at either and is the most common starting point for police encounters that turn violent. CalBike sponsored the Stop Baseless Searches Bill (AB 93, Bryan) to prevent police from searching people stopped while biking or driving. Investigations have shown that police are more likely to search bike riders during a stop for a minor infraction, that these stops are disproportionately of Black and Latino Californians, and that they’re unlikely to turn up any evidence of a crime, but this measure didn’t make it out of the Assembly.

We also prioritized the Stop Pretextual Policing Bill (SB 50, Bradford), which would have prevented police stops for minor infractions. It passed the Senate but died on the Assembly floor after last-minute opposition from law enforcement.

Fewer than half of violent crimes in California are solved. Yet police prefer to spend time on traffic stops, an element of the discredited “broken windows” theory of crime prevention. Changing attitudes about what’s needed to keep our streets safe from traffic violence is as big a challenge as convincing planners to design infrastructure that keeps people safe while biking and walking. We will continue to advocate for both.

Why You Should Support E-Bikes, Even if You Don’t Ride One

September 18, 2023/by Kendra Ramsey

E-bikes have grown in popularity over the past few years and are now the top-selling electric vehicle in the US. Along with their increased presence on California streets has come a backlash. While some of the ire has come from people driving cars who don’t want to share “their” streets with any kind of bike rider, some of the hostility toward e-bikes has come from other bike riders. Some dedicated bicyclists think an electric boost is cheating. Others complain about e-bikes going too fast on shared-use paths or in bike lanes.

What all these complaints (from people in cars or on bikes) have in common is a fear of something new. If you’re old enough to remember everyone being up in arms over the proliferation of shared e-scooters just a few years ago, the pattern will be familiar to you. Now, scooters are a popular and well-used form of shared micromobility with few complaints.

There are good reasons to support the e-bike boom, even if you never want to ride one. Here are just a few.

The e-bike boom contributes to safety in numbers

Studies have shown that the more people ride bikes, the safer it is to ride a bike. So, if adding e-bikes to California streets means an increase in the number of people on bikes, we are all safer. Safety in numbers is one way the e-bike boom contributes to overall bicycle safety.

More bike riders = more demand for safe bikeways

The “windshield perspective” of people who mainly get around by car often dominates public meetings about changes in local streets. The more people who ride bikes — and therefore understand the importance of including connected, protected bikeways — the more voices in the room advocating for bike facilities.

Perhaps, someday, so many people will get around by bike that communities will install wider bikeways with fast and slow lanes for people biking at different speeds. (We can dream!)

E-bikes are a gateway drug to the joy of bike riding

Some people who ride standard bikes feel like adding an electric boost (or, heaven forbid, a throttle!) is cheating. The bicycle is a beautiful machine, efficient and elegant. It’s terrific exercise — so why ruin it with a motor?

Classic bikes are fabulous for transportation and exercise. So are e-bikes. Studies show that people who ride e-bikes get as much exercise as those on conventional bikes because, although e-bikes require less energy per mile, their riders tend to make longer bike trips.

For people who don’t feel they can ride a conventional bike because of physical limitations, challenging topography, or the need to transport goods or passengers, the electric motor provides a 100% boost in their time on a bike. E-bikes give people who may feel unsure of their physical fitness the confidence to go for a ride, providing an introduction, or re-introduction, to the joy of bike riding.

Electric bikes make active transportation accessible to a broader range of riders

Not everyone can ride a conventional bike. People with health conditions or those just getting older may need a boost to get up a hill or to get home. Electric bikes offer a helping hand to parents who need to transport kids to school and after-school activities or folks hauling groceries.

Someone with a long commute might not have time to get there on a classic bike, but the extra speed of an e-bike and the boost can help them arrive on time. E-bikes are crucial to biking in a warming climate because they make it viable to ride on hotter days. An e-bike might enable someone to get to a job that’s hard to reach by public transit, saving them hundreds of dollars a month in driving expenses.

Yes, e-bikes are fun (as are standard bikes). But they’re also eminently practical, making bike riding a viable transportation choice for more Californians. E-bikes make biking more equitable and open to more people, and that’s something we should all be able to get behind.

E-bikes have the potential to make biking a mainstream mode of transportation in the US

Creating the conditions that allow biking to be a mainstream, common, and comfortable way to get around California communities is central to CalBike’s mission. Since most car trips are less than 3 miles, many more people should be able to use bikes (classic or electric) for everyday transportation.

Infrastructure is critical to getting more people on bikes, but it’s not the only piece of the puzzle. E-bikes make this joyous, healthy, low-carbon form of transportation accessible to a broader range of ages and abilities, and we hope all bike advocates will join us in welcoming e-bike riders on our shared streets.

E-bikes can help push California past the tipping point to reimagine our neighborhoods for a post-carbon future. We dream of a world with ample room to safely walk and bike to get around our communities, with reliable public transportation for longer distances and passenger vehicles to supplement these modes. To get to that world, bicycling can’t be exclusive or only for those brave and fit enough to tangle with fast-moving traffic on roadways designed for speed over safety. We must welcome everyone who wants to pedal to our movement — the slow rollers and fast movers, the young and old, and everyone in between.

This is the final of a series of articles on e-bike safety. You can find links to the rest of this series on our e-bike resource page.

Speed Kills: Addressing the Real Road Hazard

September 18, 2023/by Kendra Ramsey

Cities throughout California have taken steps to regulate e-bikes based on the belief that increased e-bike use is leading to collisions and dangerous conditions. These efforts ignore the real road hazard: speeding motor vehicle drivers.

Reducing speeds on city streets is the best way to protect people biking and walking, especially those most vulnerable. A Streetsblog article by Angie Schmidt shows that the chances of a pedestrian dying in a 20 mph crash are three times as high for a 70-year-old as for a 30-year-old. Children are particularly vulnerable as well because they’re shorter, less visible, and more likely to be struck on the upper body or head.

We accept thousands of fatalities (4,407 in California in 2022, around 25% of those vulnerable road users) and many more injuries and lives upended due to traffic violence as a fact of modern life. But we don’t have to. In this post, we examine the factors that contribute to the culture of speeding and what we can do to change it.

The tyranny of the 85th percentile rule

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 29% of traffic fatalities in 2021 were caused by speeding. As speeds increase, the energy of the impact goes up exponentially, radically increasing the risk of serious injury and death. For example, in the Streetsblog article referenced above, Schmidt shows that the fatality rate nearly triples if a vehicle hits a pedestrian at 30 mph rather than 20 mph.

A survey of pedestrian fatality data found that the chance of a pedestrian being killed when hit by a car doubled from 5% to 10% when speed increased from 18 to 23 mph (30 to 37km/h). The authors recommended maximum speed limits of 18 to 25 mph (30 to 40 km/h) in pedestrian zones.

Yet these recommendations can be hard to implement, even when California communities want to. The state’s primary method for determining allowed speed limits is the 85th percentile speed. This requires an engineering study to determine speed distribution on a street, and the speed limit is pegged to the speed 85% of drivers are driving at or below. AB 43, passed in 2021, gives communities increased flexibility to round speed limits down rather than up, but it doesn’t do away with the 85th percentile rule altogether.

Until California communities can set speed limits based on safety rather than car driver behavior, we’re missing a critical tool to protect vulnerable road users.

Invisible pedestrians

One factor that has contributed to an uptick in pedestrian deaths over the past few years is changes in vehicle design. Newer SUVs and pickup trucks often have much higher front grills than earlier models. This creates a large blind spot in front of the vehicle, which particularly endangers children.

A study of crashes involving SUVs found that children were killed disproportionately by SUVs. In addition, trucks with front grills that top out at around five feet off the ground are more likely to strike adults in the head and neck and more likely to drag a pedestrian under the vehicle rather than over the hood.

NACTO has called on the federal government to change the way it rates the safety of new cars to include danger to people outside the vehicle as well as inside. But the current generation of killer trucks and SUVs is likely to be on the roads for many years to come.

The car as a weapon

The vast majority of drivers don’t wish to harm anyone. But there’s been a growing trend of people (usually men) using cars as weapons. One of the more recent incidents happened in Huntington Beach, where a teenager deliberately hit three people riding bikes, killing one of them. This violent spree happened a few days after the Huntington Beach City Council considered a proposal to regulate e-bike riders because “[E]-bikes have not only become a nuisance to drivers but those driving the e-bikes have become a danger to vehicles and a danger to themselves.”

While there has been a lot of discussion of the dangers of teen e-bike riders, teen car drivers pose a much graver risk to our communities. Efforts to regulate e-bikes will do little or nothing to improve safety. But other measures can.

One study of speed interventions found that outliers (people driving far above the speed limit) had an outsized impact on pedestrian injuries. That points to the role of infrastructure changes, which can physically prevent drivers from speeding.

Built for speed: Dangerous street design contributes to fatalities

One might ask: Why would the 85% speeds be higher than the posted speed limit on a roadway? And further, how can drivers feel comfortable going so fast? The answer to both is in the design of our roads. Many of our roadways were designed by traffic engineers to provide unobstructed throughput for as many vehicles as possible. Travel lanes are often set wide enough for heavy trucks even when few (or none) use the road, and curbs are sloped to allow vehicles to turn without much slowing.

Historically, engineers have added vehicle lanes to decrease delay for drivers at peak commute time, creating wide roadways with capacity far exceeding what’s needed for most of the day, all in the name of free flow of automotive traffic. These additional lanes provide a “cushion” for car drivers that helps them feel comfortable driving faster, but they actually increase congestion and delay on the road over time.

These design choices, allowed within the prevailing guidance documents for engineers, combine to create an environment where car drivers feel comfortable — and have no physical restraints to prevent — consistently driving far above the posted speed limit.

Fortunately, there are design tools that create safer facilities for people using all modes. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), for example, has multiple guides that provide evidence-based ways to increase safety for people biking and walking. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides a list of proven safety countermeasures, many of which are aimed at preventing serious injuries and fatalities for vulnerable road users. In addition, the prevailing street design regulation and guidance documents (such as the MUTCD, Highway Design Manual, and AASHTO “Green Book”) provide for the use of “engineering judgment” to design facilities that may diverge slightly from the standard (car-centric) treatment.

CalBike has fought hard to create an environment where communities have the option to build less lethal streets. We helped pass legislation to legalize protected bikeways and to spread the word about Class IV protected bikeways. Protected bikeways have been shown to reduce fatalities not just for people on bikes but for drivers and pedestrians as well.

We continue to work to change attitudes about infrastructure. We created a Quick-Build Guide with Alta Planning + Design to help communities rapidly add elements to protect people biking and walking. And we’re surveying the condition of state highways that double as local streets to see where Complete Streets upgrades are needed.

Slow Streets toolbox

The good news is that we know how to make our streets safer. The bad news is, we aren’t always using those tools. Pandemic Slow Streets spawned a movement to make those changes permanent, and some California cities have kept car-free or car-light spaces, while more have plans to do so.

Here are some other measures that can help us rein in speeding motor vehicles:

AB 645 will allow six cities to pilot speed cameras, which have been proven to deter speeding and reduce injuries. It’s on the governor’s desk now.
AB 251 will study a tax on heavier vehicles, which could create an incentive for car manufacturers to make smaller, safer cars and trucks. It’s also waiting for the governor’s signature.
AB 413 prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk approach, which will improve visibility. This bill is also with the governor.
The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide includes a number of mechanisms to reduce vehicle speeds, including pinch points, chicanes, and speed humps. Infrastructure changes are the slowest and most costly way to prevent speeding, but they are the most effective.
The League of American Bicyclists is hosting a webinar, “Slow Roads Save Lives,” on September 21. You can register here.
CalBike is collecting data on local streets controlled by Caltrans to find where Complete Streets elements are needed to enhance the safety of people biking and walking. Take our survey by October 10, 2023, and tell us about your experience on your local streets.

Contribute to CalBike Complete Streets Research

September 11, 2023/by Andrew Wright

When most people think of Caltrans, we think of freeways. However, many California cities and towns have at least one major thoroughfare that is a numbered state route, and Caltrans is usually responsible for maintaining, repaving, and redesigning these streets. In the past, Caltrans hasn’t always followed its own policies to add Complete Streets features when it repaves.

Now CalBike is preparing a report card of state-controlled routes that double as local streets. We want to see how well Caltrans has lived up to its promises to consider the needs of people who bike and walk, and we need your help. Take our survey to rate the Caltrans-controlled streets near you.

CalBike’s Complete Streets Bill in 2019 would have mandated a more transparent process and more Complete Streets, but Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it and Caltrans vowed to do better.

Please take this quick survey to rate how comfortable you feel biking on the Caltrans-controlled roadways in your area. All responses are due by Friday, October 10.

Since 2019, pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities have continued to climb across the state. Many of California’s most dangerous streets for bicycling are maintained by Caltrans, and we need your help and insight to make them better. Please share your experience biking and walking on Caltrans roadways today so we can advocate for stronger requirements for tomorrow. With your help, Caltrans Complete Streets for all will become the norm rather than the exception.

Your voice matters, and this survey is your megaphone. Data from this survey will be used to determine needs and shape future legislation. Your candid feedback about your experiences on Caltrans-controlled roads will be instrumental in shaping the future of our streets.

Daylighting to Save Lives: Ask Governor to Sign AB 413

September 11, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

Note: This post was updated on 9/18/23. It passed the legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature.

When drivers park cars and trucks right up to a crosswalk line, it reduces visibility for vehicles approaching the crosswalk. Drivers are more likely to hit people walking or biking when they have less time to see an approaching person and yield the right of way. Children are particularly vulnerable because they’re shorter and more likely to be invisible behind a parked car. And with the increase in size and height of many trucks and SUVs, even adults are vulnerable to collisions at low-visibility intersections.

The Daylighting to Save Lives Bill (AB 413, Lee) will change the California Vehicle Code to ban cars and trucks from stopping, standing, or parking within 20 feet of the approach side of crosswalks. Daylighting is a simple, inexpensive way to improve safety and save lives. Communities can add amenities that don’t block sightlines in the newly available space, such as bike or scooter parking or bioswales, to reduce storm runoff.

Tell Governor Newsom to sign AB 413. It will save lives.

Who Has the Right to Daylight?

The primary opposition to the Daylighting to Save Lives bill comes from the trucking industry.

If California cities added 20-foot red curbs next to crosswalks, the spaces could easily turn into truck loading zones, with drivers playing the odds that they won’t get a ticket during a brief stop to make a delivery. However, that could make the problem worse, with taller vehicles blocking sightlines near crosswalks.

The trucking industry opposes AB 413 because the bill bans short-term as well as long-term parking next to crosswalks, reducing the space available for loading. The solution is to add more loading zones in commercial districts, not to endanger the lives of vulnerable road users to make deliveries more convenient.

This video from Transportation Alternatives explains the benefits of daylighting, using New York City as an example:

Daylighting is a widespread practice that California should adopt

Several states across the country already have intersection daylighting ordinances, and California should follow suit and adopt this sensible law. Use the form above to tell the governor to sign AB 413, because daylighting saves lives.

Tell Assembly to Protect Bike Riders from Pretextual Traffic Stops

September 11, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

When a police officer uses a traffic stop as cover to check for a more serious crime, that’s pretextual policing. Unfortunately, this type of enforcement does little to improve traffic safety and isn’t effective at reducing other types of crime. When police pull over bike riders for minor offenses, they disproportionately target Black and Latino people on bikes and rarely find evidence of crimes, as an LA Times investigation demonstrated.

This week, the Assembly will vote on a bill already approved by the Senate, which would end pretextual traffic stops of people biking or driving. It will lead to fairer and more effective policing. Please email your assemblymember today.

Pretextual traffic stops do more harm than good

When police use traffic stops as a type of “stop and frisk” on wheels, they target drivers in high-crime areas, not streets prone to traffic violence. These traffic stops do nothing to prevent speeding or reckless driving, and they don’t make the streets safer for people biking or walking.

Pretextual stops are also a bad tactic if the goal is to combat crime. A report by Catalyst California and the ACLU found that traffic stops in several Southern California counties were racially biased and rarely uncovered serious crimes. Freeing police to spend more time on proven methods to solve and prevent crime would be a better use of law enforcement budgets and a benefit to communities.

Traffic stops are the most common time for citizens to come in contact with law enforcement, and sometimes those encounters can turn deadly. By reducing the number of traffic stops, we can reduce fatalities and make our streets safer for all Californians.

Please tell your assemblymember to vote yes on SB 50. It just takes a minute.

3 Active Transportation Bills to Watch this Week

September 11, 2023/by Brian Smith

For Immediate Release: 9/11/23

Contact: Jared Sanchez, Policy Director, CalBike, (714) 262-0921, Jared@CalBike.org

CalBike – Legislation Watch, End of the Session 2023

SACRAMENTO – As the California state legislature approaches its final days to send bills to the Governor’s Desk in 2023 (September 14), CalBike is prioritizing three bills.

“Biking is not a crime. California has underinvested in safe infrastructure for decades and overinvested in traffic policing, sometimes with lethal results,” explained Jared Sanchez, policy director at CalBike. “These remaining bills will improve safety and access for every person who bikes, walks, or takes public transportation in California.”

CalBike urges senators to vote yes on the Daylighting to Save Lives Bill (AB 413) and the Safe Passage for Bikes Bill (AB 825) and assemblymembers to vote yes on the Stop Pretextual Policing Bill (SB 50).

AB 413 – (Lee) Daylighting to Save Lives: This bill prohibits stopping, standing, or parking a vehicle within 20 feet of the approach direction of any unmarked or marked crosswalk to increase visibility and reduce potentially lethal collisions.

AB 825 – (Bryan) Safe Passage for Bikes: As part of CalBike’s “Biking Is Not a Crime” slate, this measure allows bicycle riding on a sidewalk adjacent to a street that does not include a Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway. It protects pedestrians by requiring people on bikes to share the space responsibly and gives local leaders flexibility to impose further safety restrictions.

SB 50 – (Bradford) Stop Pretextual Policing: Police stops of people for minor infractions while biking or driving doesn’t improve traffic safety. These stops are often aimed more at deterring crime, but they do little to prevent crime, disproportionately target Black and Latino Californians, and can lead to lethal encounters. Stop pretextual policing and direct police resources toward effective crime prevention measures.

E-Bike Purchase Incentives FAQs

September 7, 2023/by Laura McCamy

We’ve been getting a lot of questions about the e-bike purchase incentive project that CalBike helped pass and that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is implementing. It’s an exciting program, and information hasn’t always been easy to come by. So we’ve compiled some of the most common questions from people who want to get a voucher, bike retailers who want to participate in the program, and others.

Pedal Ahead, the administrator CARB chose for this program, has published its own FAQs, which contain some additional information. Please note: Some of the information in the Pedal Ahead FAQs doesn’t agree with the information we have about the program. We have been told by CARB that some of the elements referenced in their FAQs are still under discussion. We will update our FAQs as we get additional information.

The official website for California’s E-Bike Incentive Project is live at ebikeincentives.org. You can get more information about how to apply for an incentive at that site (applications aren’t open yet), and bike retailers can now sign up to participate.

Note: This post was originally written October 19, 2022, and last updated September 7, 2023.

TL;DR version:

No, you can’t apply for an e-bike incentive yet. The program is expected to launch statewide in the second half of 2023 and applications will open then. We will announce the launch date as far in advance as we can.
The pilot program is limited to Californians living at or below 300% of the federal poverty level.
The voucher amount will likely be $1,000, with an extra $750 for a cargo or adaptive bike, and $250 additional for people below 225% FPL or living in a disadvantaged census tract.
Incentives are limited to one per person. There is no limit per household.
There are many local e-bike incentive programs. Visit our e-bike page for a full list.

What is California’s E-Bike Incentive Project?

The Electric Bicycle Incentives Project is a $10 million program to provide vouchers to California residents to help them afford an e-bike. CalBike advocated for the budget allocation, which passed in 2021 and funds the pilot project. CARB has

The project will distribute $7.5 million in incentives, with $5 million reserved for high-priority applicants (those at or below 225% of the poverty line or living in a disadvantaged or polluted community.)

CARB has an additional $3 million in funding that will go to fund additional vouchers.

Can I get an e-bike voucher from CalBike?

No.

CalBike is not administering the e-bike incentives program. Our role is one of advocacy. We advocated for the creation of this purchase incentive, and we will continue to push for an expanded budget to support the program. CalBike also shares critical information about the program via our e-bike newsletter, and we help our member’s voices be heard so that the program better serves the people who need it most. CalBike does not process or distribute incentives.

CARB will manage the incentive distribution process through its third-party administrator starting in 2023. We will share information about how to apply once it’s available, but CalBike won’t be involved in processing applications or awarding e-bike incentive vouchers.

Is California’s statewide program an expansion of the San Diego e-bike program?

No. Some press reports stated that California’s statewide purchase incentive was an expansion of a similar program in San Diego. This is incorrect.

CARB chose Pedal Ahead, an organization that runs an e-bike program in San Diego, to administer the statewide program. However, the CARB purchase incentives pilot will have rules and parameters determined by CARB in conjunction with input from advocates and the public. The statewide program is separate from and different from the San Diego program.

When can I apply for a California e-bike incentive?

As soon as the program launches. You can’t apply in advance. However, if you sign up for CalBike’s e-bike mailing list below, we’ll let you know when the application window will open as soon as we get the date.

In the meantime, visit the program website to see if you’re eligible and find out what documentation you’ll need for proof of income.

I already applied for an e-bike incentive. Am I in line? When will I get it?

At the April work group for the statewide program, several people stated that they had already applied for it. However, applications haven’t opened up yet. Even if you believe you applied for this incentive in the past, you will have to apply again once the application portal launches. Unfortunately, you aren’t in line for the statewide incentive (no one is yet).

Note: Signing up for CalBike’s list is a great way to stay up-to-date on the latest e-bike incentive news, but it is not an application for an incentive. That is a completely separate process in which you will need to prove income eligibility.

Can I get a rebate on an e-bike I already purchased?

No.

The Electric Bicycle Incentives Project is not a rebate program. You need to apply and get approved before you purchase a bike in order to use the incentive.

If you recently bought an e-bike, you might qualify for a rebate from a local program such as 511ContraCosta. Check the list on our e-bike page and ask your local utility about rebates. In addition, if the E-BIKE Act passes congress, you might be eligible for a federal tax credit.

How do I apply for a voucher from California’s statewide e-bike incentives program?

The program administrator will set up an application process, and you will almost certainly be able to apply for the program online.

To apply, you’ll need documentation to prove that you meet the income qualifications. We’ll know more about the application process closer to the launch date.

What are the requirements to apply for an e-bike incentive?

You will have to prove income eligibility and California residency. We expect more information on specific documentation to be available soon.

Other requirements:

Purchase the bike within 90 days of incentive award
Own the bike for one year
Take a 30-minute bike safety education class online

How can I get assistance to buy an e-bike in California?

The Electric Bicycle Incentives Project will be California’s first statewide e-bike voucher program. However, there are many regional and local programs where you might be able to get funding to help you buy an e-bike now.

SB 400, which CalBike helped pass in 2019, added an e-bike benefit to the Clean Cars for All program, which aims to take polluting cars off the road. If you have a qualifying car to turn in, incentives can be as high as $9,500, and you can use the funds to buy e-bikes and bike accessories for multiple family members. However, this program is administered by regional air quality management districts, and not all districts have added the e-bike benefit. We spoke to people who got this voucher in the Bay Area and Southern California to give you an idea of the process. Find out more details about the Bay Area program on this handy reference page.

In addition, there are numerous local programs through nonprofit organizations, utilities, and other entities. You can find many California programs on this list of global e-bike incentive programs.

How long does it take to get an e-bike incentive?

We don’t know how long the application process will take through the statewide program, but it will involve income verification and then finding an eligible bike vendor, so plan on at least a few weeks (and possibly longer) from when you apply.

For the Clean Cars program, the people we interviewed waited quite a few months to get through paperwork and approvals. For local programs, inquire directly about the timing.

Bottom line: If you need an e-bike ASAP, you might not want to wait to get a voucher.

Who will qualify for the California e-bike incentive program?

Eligibility for the pilot program will be limited to people whose income is less than 300% of the federal poverty level. That means the income caps (based on 2023 FPL guidelines) would be:

Individual: $43,740
Family of 2: $59,160
Family of 3: $74,580
Family of 4: $90,000
Family of 5: $105,420

CARB originally proposed income limits of 400% FPL but lowered the limits to align with eligibility requirements for other clean vehicle programs.

How much will the California e-bike incentives be?

The basic incentive will be $1,000. The program will offer an additional $750 for people buying a cargo or adaptive bike and another $250 for people living below 225% of the federal poverty level or living in a disadvantaged community.

What kinds of bikes qualify for incentives?

You can use the incentive to buy any type of e-bike, including a folding bike, cargo bike, or adaptive bike. All three classes of e-bikes will be eligible for the program. However, you will need to purchase from a list of approved e-bike models.

E-bikes are grouped into three classes:

Class 1: pedal assist only, 20 mph speed limited — will qualify for the program
Class 2: pedal assist or throttle, 20 mph speed limited — will qualify for the program
Class 3: pedal assist only, 28 mph speed limited, helmets required, must be 16 or older to operate — likely to qualify for the program

Note: Only bicycles that include pedals, fall into one of these three classifications, and are offered by an approved retailer qualify for the incentive program. Other forms of electric mobility, such as scooters and mopeds, are not included.

What qualifies as an adaptive bike?

CARB wants to keep the definition of adaptive bike as inclusive as possible. The category will most likely include tricycles and bikes modified for people with disabilities.

Can I use an e-bike incentive to buy a conversion kit?

A conversion kit allows you to add aftermarket electric power to a standard bike frame. Conversion kits are not part of the proposed eligible purchases.

Can I buy bike accessories to go with my bike?

Yes. If you are awarded an incentive through the California program and your bike purchase, including sales tax, is less than the amount of your voucher, you can buy gear for your ride with the remaining balance. At the moment, the only allowed purchases are helmets and other unspecified “safety gear.” CARB has stated that it specifically won’t fund the purchase of reflective clothing or bike cargo racks, but we hope that policy shifts, based on public comment. We also hope that locks will be included in the allowed purchase items.

Why can’t I get an incentive to buy a non-electric bike?

Excellent question. The current program covers only electric bike purchases, not standard or classic bikes. Electric bikes tend to be significantly more expensive than classic bikes, so a purchase incentive may be the only way for many people to afford one. In addition, many people who don’t feel comfortable riding a standard bike because of age, health issues, the need to carry passengers or cargo, etc., may replace car trips with bike trips on an electric bike.

However, the classic bicycle is incredibly energy-efficient and elegant transportation, and some places do offer incentives to help residents buy non-motorized bicycles. For example, the French government is offering 400 Euros to citizens who trade their cars for a bike or e-bike. CalBike would love to see a program like this in California and we will continue to explore ways to encourage more people to choose the joy of riding a bike.

Where can I buy an e-bike with a CARB incentive?

The program administrator will provide a list of qualifying bike retailers. You can buy from a bike shop or order an e-bike online.

How do I purchase a bike with an incentive?

The statewide incentive will be a point-of-sale benefit. Once you pick out a bike from a qualifying retailer, the incentive amount will be applied when you make the purchase. You don’t have to put out that money up front and get reimbursed.

I’m an e-bike retailer. How can I participate in the program?

Retailers now can apply online through the program website. Qualifying retailers need to have some kind of physical presence in California (a shop, office, or manufacturing facility), even if you sell your bikes exclusively online. You may need to supply parts to local retailers so participants can have access to repairs and service.

Will there be more e-bike incentives next year, or is this a one-time program?

CARB’s preliminary budget for the 2023/2024 fiscal year includes $18 million in additional funding for e-bike incentives. It’s not yet clear whether these funds will go toward the initial incentives rollout or be distributed in a later application window. It does appear that CARB is including e-bike incentives in its clean transportation funding program, which also gives rebates on EV purchases.

How do I get more information about the e-bike incentive program?

Have we mentioned that CalBike has an e-bike incentives interest list? Use the form below to add your name, and we’ll send periodic updates as we get more information, including letting you know when you can apply.

You can also sign up for CARB’s e-bike email list to get information directly from CARB.

Preventing E-Bike Battery Fires

September 5, 2023/by Laura McCamy

This post was updated to correct some technical information. Thank you to PeopleForBikes for providing additional information about lithium batteries and safety certifications.

E-bikes aren’t inherently dangerous on the road and may even be safer in some situations if the electric boost allows a rider to escape a dangerous traffic situation. Much of the current e-bike safety panic is thinly disguised bikelash. However, there is one e-bike safety concern that does have some basis in reality: battery fires.

The lithium batteries that power e-bikes (and electric cars, scooters, computers, and other devices) pack a lot of power into a relatively small space. These batteries allow e-bike riders to go 30 to 50 or more miles on a single charge. However, lithium batteries burn at high heat if they catch fire, presenting a potential hazard when riders charge their bikes inside homes or garages.

Fortunately, there are several things you can do to safely charge your e-bike battery.

Don’t leave the battery unattended while charging

Your e-bike is very unlikely to burst into flames while you’re riding; most documented e-bike battery fires have happened during charging. When a lithium e-bike battery gets plugged in to charge, it can get overheated if the membranes separating the individual battery cells are too thin.

Don’t leave your battery plugged in overnight, and keep an eye on it while it’s charging. If it starts to get hot, unplug it immediately and take it outside of your home.

Buy a bike with a safety-tested battery

The bicycle industry advocacy group PeopleForBikes suggests buying a bike with a battery that meets UL 2849 or EN 15194 standard. The UL certification means that an independent laboratory has tested the drive system and battery to a voluntary US safety standard published by Underwriters Laboratories. The EN standard is an EU certification, and the two safety tests are very similar; either can give you peace of mind that your battery has well-constructed lithium cells and a battery management system (BMS) designed to prevent conditions like overheating, overcharging, or a short circuit that can lead to fires.

The only downside of these higher-quality batteries is that they’re expensive, adding to the price of the bike and the battery replacement cost. However, the safety tradeoff is worth it.

Don’t use aftermarket batteries or accessories

Many e-bike battery fires have been linked to aftermarket batteries. In New York City, where e-bike delivery workers can travel 100 miles or more in a day, some use batteries designed to hold a longer charge that lack the proper separation between lithium cells or lack a BMS. Poorly designed batteries can overheat during charging, which may lead to fires.

If you need to replace your e-bike battery, buy the battery designed for the motor on your bike.

Extension cords have also been linked to battery fires. Always plug your battery charger directly into an outlet.

Protect your battery from the elements

When e-bike batteries get damaged, they’re more susceptible to catching fire. Don’t use a battery pack with a damaged case. To keep your battery healthy, protect it from the elements and extreme temperatures as much as possible.

How the California E-Bike Incentive Program could improve e-bike safety

In addition to a general movement across the country to ensure the safety of e-bike batteries, California’s E-Bike Incentive Program, which will launch soon, could have a positive impact on battery safety. The program, which will provide millions of dollars of incentives to help low-income Californians purchase e-bikes, mandates that eligible models must have safety-tested batteries. That could motivate manufacturers to focus more on battery safety and retailers to gravitate toward e-bikes with batteries that have been proven to be safe. CalBike applauds the California Air Resources Board for making this standard one of the elements of the program.

The greatest e-bike safety threat remains poorly designed streets

While lithium battery safety is important, it’s not the biggest safety threat for people who use e-bikes for transportation or recreation. Most of the e-bike-related fires in the US have occurred in New York City, but many more people have been killed by traffic violence while riding e-bikes. Over half the e-bike crashes nationwide during the study period of a recent NTSB report occurred in the five boroughs of New York City.

California has, fortunately, seen relatively few fires caused by improper e-bike charging or overheated batteries. But traffic violence poses a real and ongoing threat to people on all types of bikes and CalBike is committed to working toward safer streets for all vulnerable road users.

The Case Against E-Bike Licensing

September 5, 2023/by Kendra Ramsey

Amid rising safety concerns, particularly in Southern California, proposals to add more restrictions to who can ride an e-bike and to require e-bike riders to have a license have gained steam. In 2024, the legislature will consider a bill to do just that. And the Huntington Beach City Council has announced its intention to develop a proposal to require bike licensing within its city limits.

Unfortunately, this is the wrong solution. Traffic violence is a serious issue; constraining e-bike riders isn’t the solution.

Why bike education is good and mandating it is bad

One of the challenges of this conversation is that education about how to safely operate a bicycle is a good thing. It would be great if every bike rider got training on how to ride safely. Teaching elementary school students how to ride a bike responsibly would be excellent. However, requiring a license will create opportunities for harassment of the most vulnerable riders and deter people from riding.

Requiring riders to complete a safety course, even if it’s not called a license, is, in effect, the same thing. Police will be able to stop e-bike riders and ask for proof of safety course completion. We know that police are more likely to stop Black and Latino bike riders, and those stops are more likely to include harassment, expensive tickets for minor infractions, and sometimes even violence. The people least able to complete a course or get an e-bike license — because of lack of access, money, or time to complete the training — are also the most likely to be targeted while riding, even if they are riding safely.

Plus, restrictions on bikes, even in the name of safety, reduce ridership. A helmet law in Australia caused a dramatic dropoff in ridership. The bicycle is an efficient and essential tool to fight climate change, and e-bikes make bicycling accessible to a wider range of people. E-bike licensing requirements are unlikely to measurably reduce the prevalence of crashes (see below for why), but they will reduce ridership just as California needs to employ every strategy to mitigate the climate crisis.

People who drive cars should learn about bike riding

Some of the prejudice against people on bikes comes from people who don’t ride bikes and don’t understand safe bike riding. Vehicle driver education doesn’t adequately address how to safely share the road with someone riding a bike, even though bikes are fully legal vehicles on a majority of roadways. Advocates continue to work to add more about bicycling to driver education and bring bike riding handbooks to the DMV. In the meantime, car drivers, please take a bicycle education class! (Bike riders should take a class, too — even veteran riders may have something to learn.)

Many local bicycle coalitions and even some local governments offer in-person and online trainings, usually for free. New resources specifically for electric bikes are coming online as well: PeopleforBikes has created a series of short e-bike safety videos, the CHP has created online safety information pursuant to AB 1946, and the Air Resource Board will release a half-hour e-bike safety training video in the next few weeks. (We’ll review and compare all three once they’re live.)

Regulating e-bikes won’t solve the problem of traffic violence

The US has a long and inglorious history of blaming and penalizing victims rather than perpetrators. We’ve thrown sex-trafficked women in jail for prostitution, thrown out rape charges based on the outfit the woman (or girl) was wearing, arrested and brutalized Black people for being victims of violence—the list goes on.

Given this history and our car-centric culture, it’s not surprising that the first response to an increase in collisions that injure or kill people riding e-bikes is to regulate, control, and limit not reckless car driving or dangerous streets, but e-bikes.

Unfortunately, even if we removed all e-bikes (and classic bikes) from our roadways tomorrow, we wouldn’t solve the problem of traffic violence. Everyone still needs to walk at some point, and pedestrians now make up a quarter of California’s traffic fatalities, despite having a much smaller mode share than motor vehicles.

Plus, people who drive cars will find other things to hit, such as homes, shopping centers, and movie theaters. Those three examples are all from California, all from the past three months; there are many more.

People crash their cars into all sorts of things; they did it before e-bikes became popular, and they’ll continue to do it until we design our streets for safety rather than speed.

Who loses when you add obstacles to bike riding?

E-bikes are a terrific way to get around for people who are too young to drive or don’t want a driver’s license. Older adults and people with disabilities can greatly increase their mobility and get healthy exercise with e-bikes. The motor power allows people with long commutes, parents who need to transport children, and people who need to haul groceries or equipment to do it by bike.

If we require a license to ride an e-bike, low-income people will be saddled with unaffordable tickets. Fewer people will ride. Communities of color, who often live in neighborhoods poorly served by transit, will be most impacted.

More people will drive, and fewer people will bike. So, in the end, we all lose.