Featured Archives - Page 4 of 17

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

January 22, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

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

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

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

Varied paths to VRU safety

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

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

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

What is a vulnerable road user law?

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

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

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

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

How effective are VRU ordinances?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Driving a car shouldn’t be a license to kill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California’s Transportation Budget Must Prioritize Green Transportation

January 10, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

CalBike: California’s Transportation Budget Must Prioritize Green Transportation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 9, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

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

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

What is a technical advisory committee?

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

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

Caltrans workshops implementation of new Complete Streets law

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

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

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

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

CalBike’s Best and Worst of 2024

December 23, 2024/by CalBike Staff

This was a year of ups and downs, of big wins for safer streets and big setbacks for funding to build safer streets. Like almost every year, 2024 was a time of contradictions and mixed messages for bicycle advocates in California and beyond. So it’s time to celebrate the good and make fun of the bad. Here’s CalBike’s rundown of the best and worst of 2024.

Best evidence that persistence pays off: SB 960, the Complete Streets Law

Three bills. Eight years of campaigning. And, in 2024 — Complete Streets success! We applaud Senator Scott Wiener for standing behind and reintroducing his legislation to require Caltrans to build infrastructure for people walking, biking, and taking transit on state-controlled roadways. CalBike stuck with it, too, tirelessly campaigning for Caltrans to live up to its own policies around Complete Streets.

CalBike’s Andrew Wright brings us a festive holiday song to celebrate this win (sung to the tune of Auld Lang Syne):

Verse 1:
Should safer streets be just a dream,
And never see the day?
Not anymore — Complete Streets Bill
Has paved a brighter way!

Chorus:
For safer roads and paths we cheer,
For biking, walking fine,
Let’s raise a toast, the fight is won,
This victory is thine!

Verse 2:

Guv’nor’s pen has sealed the deal,
Complete Streets law is here.
A step toward safety for us all,
Let’s celebrate this year!

Honorable mention: the Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086

Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo’s Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086, which CalBike joined other advocates in supporting, will be an excellent adjunct to the Complete Streets law. The bill mandates greater transparency and reporting from Caltrans about where it spends California transportation dollars and will allow us to better advocate for shifting the budget toward infrastructure that encourages active transportation.

Worst missed chance to make our streets even safer: the demise of SB 961, the Safer Vehicles Save Lives Bill

Advocates weren’t asking that car and truck drivers stop killing people, just that they kill fewer people. But even that was too much for California lawmakers. After all, carnage on our streets is part of the American way of life — am I right? First, the legislature killed the provision of the bill that would have mandated truck underride guards, an inexpensive safety feature for semi-trucks that would have saved hundreds of lives every year. Then the governor vetoed the final version of the bill, which required car manufacturers to install intelligent speed assist in some faraway future year. ISA warns drivers when they exceed the speed limit by 10 mph or more, and it’s already required in the EU. But we can’t have nice things, apparently.

Best act of transportation transparency: the Incomplete Streets Report

CalBike started requesting Caltrans project records, which aren’t available to the public, in 2023. The CalBike team spent much of 2024 reviewing and analyzing the data, culminating in Incomplete Streets: Aligning Practice with Promise in Caltrans Projects. The report, which was previewed in Streetsblog California over the summer, showed the inconsistent and inadequate treatment of biking and walking infrastructure in Caltrans projects and helped pass the Complete Streets Bill. Let’s hope it sparks a new era of building streets for everyone at Caltrans, starting in 2025!

Worst way to announce the best news: E-Bike Incentive Project launch

The long-awaited statewide E-Bike Incentive Project accepted its first set of applications in December, preparing to give away 1,500 incentives out of a projected total of 15,000 currently available through the program. This is terrific news, and we hope more application windows will follow starting in early 2025. After more than two years of refining the program and the passing of many promised launch dates, the California Air Resources Board announced the first application window less than three weeks before the date, which sent everyone scrambling to get the word out or get ready to apply a week before Christmas, but why not? We didn’t have anything else to do right now. We’re thrilled the program has started the process of handing out vouchers, and we look forward to more application windows in 2025.

Best 2024 election news: New bike champions in the California legislature

Six of nine candidates CalBike endorsed for district elections won and three lost, two of them by the narrowest of margins. We’re looking forward to working with five new bike champions in the Assembly and one in the Senate this session, as well as the many returning active transportation supporters. We hope the other excellent candidates come back to run again in the near future.

Best California bike champion heading to the national stage: Laura Friedman

In the Assembly, Laura Friedman was a steadfast voice for active transportation and safer streets, sponsoring visionary legislation for 15-minute cities (which hasn’t passed — yet) and omnibus changes to the California Vehicle Code to make the streets safer for people on bikes (the OmniBike Bill, which passed in 2022). Friedman successfully ran to fill Adam Schiff’s congressional seat. We’re glad to have such a strong bicycle advocate in the U.S. Congress.

Worst way to save a fraction of California’s state budget: Defund the Active Transportation Program

It was a tough budget year in 2024, the second year of budget shortfalls. That left the governor and legislators with some hard decisions about where they could make cuts. For the second year in a row, Governor Gavin Newsom proposed cutting the Active Transportation Program, this time to zero. The ATP, which gives grants to local governments for projects that make biking and walking safer, is one of the smaller programs in California’s transportation budget. Every year, it’s more oversubscribed as the demand for Complete Streets grows. The legislature restored $200 million of the total $600 million that should have gone to the program, which meant only 13 out of dozens of worthy projects got funding in the most recent cycle. It was a small savings for the California budget but a big loss for safe streets.

Best reporting on the worst news for active transportation: Melanie Curry and Streetsblog California

Streetsblog California and the USA, LA, and SF Streetsblogs bring us indispensable reporting about the latest developments for biking, walking, public transportation, high-speed rail, urbanism, and much more every day. But we have to call out Streetsblog California’s editor, Melanie Curry, for fearlessly wading through the weeds to shed light on the arcane minutiae of the CTC and other administrative bodies. These agencies rely on their work being too dense and complex for the public to understand to operate with impunity out of public view; Curry’s reporting digs into the details to make critical information comprehensible and help hold state agencies accountable to the public.

Worst local bikeway decisions: tie — Richmond Bridge and Culver City bike lane removals

Adding a bikeway to a local street or bridge creates a valuable connection and a joyful ride or commute. Taking away an existing bikeway is a movement in the wrong direction — we aren’t going to beat climate change by driving like it’s the 1950s.

Proving they think bicycles are toys and Serious People drive cars, local politicians are pushing to remove the popular Richmond/San Rafael Bridge path, which provides a connection between Richmond and San Rafael for people biking and walking, replacing it with a car breakdown lane on weekdays and opening the bikeway only on weekends.

Culver City removed protected, already-built bike lanes, forcing people on bikes to share a lane with buses. As a result, the city will have to return $435 million in grant money that funded the original construction of the lanes.

Looking for a way to harm the climate while also taking a bite out of city budgets and stealing joy? Look no further than these two regressive projects. Way to not go, Culver City and Richmond/San Rafael Bridge.

Most fun while keeping bikeways clear of debris: Bicycle-powered street sweeper

The Napa County Bicycle Coalition got creative in its effort to keep Caltrans from killing a protected bikeway over street sweeping challenges. The advocacy group fundraised, bought a bicycle-pulled street sweeper, and adopted that section of roadway. If there’s a better way to have fun while cleaning, we haven’t heard of it.

Most dangerous marketing ploy: Labeling electric motorcycles as e-bikes and selling them to kids

CalBike has been decrying the hysteria over e-bikes for the past year, calling out cities that declared “e-bike” emergencies after people in cars hit and killed e-bike riders. But there is another issue fueling anxiety about e-bikes: illegal electric motorcycles marketed as e-bikes and sold to unlicensed and often underage riders.

To skirt the stricter rules for electric motorcycles and capitalize on the popularity of e-bikes, some manufacturers and retailers are marketing e-motorcycles that go much faster than allowable speeds for e-bikes under California law as e-bikes. The proliferation of these illegal e-motorcycles on our streets and bike paths fuels anti-e-bike sentiment, leading to discrimination against people riding legitimate e-bikes and discouraging people from riding bikes. We hope the industry and California regulators take action toward honest labeling of these illegal e-motorcycles.

Most compelling race: Which will be completed first, the Sagrada Familia or pedestrian-friendly crosswalks on Beach Boulevard in Orange County?

Construction began on architect Antoni Gaudi’s sprawling Sagrada Familia church in Barcelona in 1882 — and it’s still not finished. We’re still waiting for Caltrans to make Beach Boulevard, which starts at the Pacific Ocean and is a major thoroughfare through Orange County, a street that serves all users. Paris rebuilt Notre Dame in less than six years. We hope we don’t have to wait another 60 for Caltrans to reimagine Beach Boulevard.

Best click-bait title to break into the mainstream: Killed by a Traffic Engineer by Wes Marshall

Want to get the attention of traffic engineers and active transportation supporters alike? Call your book Killed by a Traffic Engineer. Wes Marshall’s tome is more than the best-titled transportation book of the year; it’s a fantastic read that makes a compelling case for radically changing the way we plan and manage our roadways.

California’s E-Bike Incentives Are Finally Here

December 16, 2024/by Kendra Ramsey

This post was originally published 12/11/24 and updated 12/16/24.

The California Air Resources Board announced that its much-delayed E-Bike Incentive Project would open for applications on Wednesday, December 18, 2024, at 6:00 pm PT. CARB won’t release all $31 million in vouchers on that date; it still plans to do a phased program, releasing a limited number of vouchers every few months. In the initial window, it will distribute 1,500 vouchers using about 10% of the program funding.

See the bottom of this post for links to informative videos about how to apply.

E-bike incentive program basics

The California vouchers are $1,750 and may be used to purchase an eligible e-bike from an approved retailer. The voucher can go toward the purchase of a bike, including sales tax, as well as accessories such as a helmet or panniers to go with the bike.

All the e-bike models in the program have safety-certified batteries. People who are awarded vouchers will have 45 days to choose an e-bike and make a purchase. The incentive is point-of-sale and will act as a discount applied to your purchase from an approved retailer. If you need additional time, you can get a one-time, 45-day extension to use your voucher.

You can buy an e-bike online through this program. However, the cost to return a bike purchased online is not covered by the voucher, and the shipping can be expensive. If you’re able to go in person to test-ride bikes, the program administrator recommends doing that. Finding the right fit is crucial when buying any bike, including an e-bike.

Only eligible California residents will receive vouchers

To qualify for an incentive, you must be over 18 and a California resident. You must also meet income requirements, and you’ll need documentation to verify your age, residency, and income. Participants in certain assistance programs are automatically income-eligible. Find out what you need to prove your eligibility.

The program is open only to people who earn 300% of the federal poverty level or less. People with income at or below 225% of the federal poverty level or who live in a disadvantaged community will qualify for an additional $250, for a total incentive of $2,000. You don’t need to know if you meet these additional criteria; the program administrator will verify your qualification for the additional incentive when it reviews your application, and the voucher will state the total incentive.

Many people will not get vouchers on December 18

If e-bike incentive programs in other states are any indication, demand for the vouchers will be very high. CalBike has an e-bike interest list of more than 20,000 people. As many as 10 million Californians are income-qualified for this program. There are only 1,500 vouchers available in this round. The math means that many people are likely to be disappointed.

At 6:00 p.m. on December 18, the application portal will open. At that time, people will be placed in a waiting room to be let in to apply, to prevent the site from crashing. You will be let in in the order you get onto the site. The program will only accept 1,500 applicants. You can’t pre-register to get in more quickly.

Unfortunately, we can’t offer any tips to improve your chances of being one of the lucky ones to make it through the traffic jam and complete an application. But remember that this is just the first of several application windows. CARB plans to give out around 15,000 incentives in total with the money already budgeted for this program. You’ll have another chance in 2025.

Helpful videos on the e-bike incentive application process

The program administrator has created a video to walk you through the application process.

If you still have questions about the application process, CalBike hosted a webinar on December 16, 2024 to go over the process and answer many questions from applicants.

CalBike’s Agenda for 2025

December 11, 2024/by Kendra Ramsey

On December 3, around 100 advocates and supporters joined CalBike on Zoom for a recap of a momentous 2024, a celebration of 30 years of bike advocacy, and a look forward to CalBike’s 2025 agenda. In breakout sessions, participants shared more ideas and enthusiasm for some of CalBike’s top priorities, including bicycle highways and shared streets legislation. You can view the whole webinar at the bottom of this post.

CalBike’s 2025 priorities

We outlined CalBike’s 2025 priorities, which will build on successes from 2024, most notably passing the Complete Streets Bill, SB 960. We are looking for partners in Sacramento to move our legislative agenda forward and working with staffers and agency stakeholders to move our budget priorities forward and implement the Complete Streets Law.

Here are some of the key elements of CalBike’s 2025 agenda.

Bicycle highways

We plan to recommend a pilot program establishing networks of bicycle highways that are numbered and signed. The goal is to test the concept in two major metropolitan regions. The bike highways would serve trips of five miles or more, and support higher speed travel of up to 25 miles per hour. The highways would connect to other regional routes, creating links between communities and making biking an even more convenient and safe way to get around.

Shared Streets

The Open Streets and Slow Streets movements gained momentum during the pandemic. Demand for safe spaces where people of all ages can comfortably play, ride a bike, roll, and walk continues to grow, building on ideas such as School Streets.

Shared Streets would create a new roadway classification where vulnerable road users would have the right of way at all locations, not just at intersections and crosswalks. Popular in Europe, Shared Streets are slow-speed facilities that truly prioritize travel by bike and foot. They are safe and vibrant spaces built around people-powered movement.

Quick-build pilot

A perfect companion to Shared Streets is a Bikeway Quick-Build Pilot Program. The program would expedite the development and implementation of safe, protected bikeways on the state highway system, much of which runs through our towns and cities. It would also give planners and road users the opportunity to live with safer streets and iterate the design process, leading to robust community support for building more permanent facilities.

CalBike’s concept would require Caltrans to develop guidelines for implementing bikeway quick-build projects, which would be both faster and less expensive to build than hardscape changes. Quick-build would be a catalyst for the development of facilities to improve safety for people on bikes, who continue to be injured and killed on unsafe roadways while long-term planning is done.

Bike Omnibus

In 2022, Assemblymember Laura Friedman’s OmniBike Bill made several significant changes to the California Vehicle Code as it applied to biking and walking. The commonsense changes in that bill make our streets more bike-friendly, and we’d like to run another bill to build in more change to the code for people who get around by bike.

The bill would:

Clarify hand signaling: Bicyclists would not be required to provide a signal if “circumstances require that both hands be used to safely control or operate the bicycle.”
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon: this would clarify that a person riding a bicycle would have the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian at a PHB or HAWK beacon but shall yield to pedestrians upon and along a crosswalk.
More daylighting: Prohibit extra-tall vehicles from parking for an additional specified distance from a marked or unmarked crosswalk to improve visibility for vulnerable road users at the crossing.

The Bicycle Safety Stop

We continue to seek the introduction and passage of this commonsense regulation, which allows people on bikes to treat stop signs as yields. Similar laws have existed for more than 40 years in other states with no adverse outcomes, and the Safety Stop helps bike riders and car drivers share the road more and makes bike riding safer. Whether or not we’re able to run a bill in 2025, CalBike will keep campaigning for this law.

A new bikeway classification

Many California cities have created bike boulevards — traffic-calmed streets where people on bikes are safe to take the lane. Currently, bike boulevards are classified as a subset of Class III bikeways, on which people in cars and people on bikes share a lane. However, bike boulevards are distinct from Class III bikeways, many of which consist of sharrows on high-speed routes. It’s time to create a separate classification for these low-volume streets, many of which have diverters to prevent non-local car traffic and prioritize bicycle through traffic. Bike boulevards would become Class 5 bikeways.

E-Bike Policy

E-bike safety is a hot topic and we are having ongoing conversations with our local partners and legislators alike on issues surrounding e-bikes. There were several pilot bills in different parts of the state in 2024, as well as local ordinances cracking down on e-bikes. Some key topics include clarification of illegal electric motorcycles, which may be marketed as e-bikes but have significant differences including not having operable pedals, operating at much higher speeds, and/or being able to be modified or switched between modes to go faster than the top speed allowed for e-bikes. We recently crafted a coalition letter on the topic and will keep working to ensure that e-bikes continue to be a safe and viable form of transportation in California.

We are also talking with legislators about more money for active transportation infrastructure in next year’s budget and working with Caltrans to ensure it fully implements the new Complete Streets law. CalBike had a big year in 2024 and we’ll continue to push for a California full of bikes in 2025.

Watch the Agenda Reveal, including a look back at CalBike’s 30-year history of bicycle advocacy.

CalBike Leads Coalition Calling for Regulation of Illegal E-Motorcycles

December 11, 2024/by Jared Sanchez

CalBike, along with 30 other bicycle and active transportation advocacy groups, released a letter today calling on our elected leaders to better regulate illegal electric motorcycles, which have top speeds above what’s allowed for electric bicycles. These e-motorcycles may be marketed as e-bikes, but they don’t meet California’s definition of an e-bike. Confusion between these illegal e-motorcycles and e-bikes has led several California cities to incorrectly regulate the use of legitimate e-bikes, which has the potential to harm all bike riders without improving safety.

Read the letter

Statement on E-Bike Safety from California Bicycle Advocates 12.11.2024 Download

Bike-Friendly Candidates Elected in California Races

November 13, 2024/by Jared Sanchez

This post was updated November 15, 2024, to reflect new vote tallies.

CalBike endorsed eight candidates for the state legislature and one bike champion in a county race. Six of those nine candidates won their races, one lost, and two are still too close to call.

California State Assembly gets five new bike champions

In the Assembly, we’re excited to welcome five new active transportation supporters that CalBike endorsed:

Catherine Stefani, Assembly District 19: San Francisco
Nick Schultz, Assembly District 44: Burbank
Robert Garcia, Assembly District 50: Rialto
Jessica Caloza, Assembly District 52: Los Angeles
Sade Elhawary, Assembly District 57: Los Angeles.

We look forward to working with these new members and the fresh perspectives they will bring to the legislative process.

Unfortunately, Colin Parent, who we endorsed for Assembly District 79 in La Mesa, has lost. Clarissa Cervantes in Assembly District 58, Corona, is behind her opponent, but the race is very close, ballots are still being counted, and the margin is getting smaller, so we’re still keeping our eye on this race.

A new ally in the Senate

Our endorsed candidate for Senate District 25, Sasha Renée Pérez, will join the California State Senate when the new session begins in a few weeks. Pérez is a strong ally who wants our state to get serious about addressing the state’s housing crisis if we intend to tackle the climate crisis. She told CalBike that active transportation and public transportation funding will be one of her top priorities, and we look forward to working with her.

The Bike Mayor in a tight race for county supervisor

John Bauters was dubbed the “Bike Mayor” during his time on the Emeryville City Council (the mayor position rotates among council members). He is famous for getting to regional commission meetings by bike and documenting his travels on his prolific Twitter feed.

CalBike endorsed Bauters for Alameda County District Supervisor because of his track record of bringing safer streets to Emeryville. The margin between the two candidates in this race makes it too close to call at this time.

Thank you to those of you who volunteered for, donated to, or voted for these candidates.

Active Transportation Program Struggles After Deep Funding Cuts

November 8, 2024/by Jared Sanchez

Last week, the California Transportation Commission released staff recommendations for the 2025 Active Transportation Program (ATP). The news is dire: $2.5 billion in requests were made, but the California Transportation Commission (CTC) had only $100 million to award in statewide grants, enough to greenlight just 13 projects over the two-year funding cycle.

Budget cuts that punch down at vulnerable road user safety

The ATP was one of only two transportation programs cut in the 2024 budget, despite the fact that it’s the only statewide funding source for biking and walking infrastructure projects and is chronically underfunded and oversubscribed, even without budget cuts. The governor initially recommended cutting all the funding from this program; negotiations with the legislature restored $200 million, allowing the ATP’s Cycle 7 to proceed, even though it was only able to fund 4% of the applications.

The total funding available for the three components (statewide — $84 million, small urban/rural — $16 million, and $68 million for Metropolitan Planning Organizations) that comprise the ATP is $168 million for Cycle 7 instead of the normal amount, which varies from $300 million to $600 million. This leaves an unprecedented shortfall in funding for the CTC’s most oversubscribed and competitive program.

A tiny but critical transportation program

The projects funded by the ATP are critical to meeting California’s climate, safety, and equity goals. The state budget agreement reached in 2024 leaves room for additional funding that would allow additional projects to be built, though there’s no guarantee the funds will become available. And, even if the legislature finds an additional $400 million for the 2025 ATP, program needs will continue to remain greater than the funding the state allocates for this vital program.

Only nine projects have so far been recommended to receive funding through the statewide component and four for the small urban and rural component in the 2025 ATP. These projects were scored at 95 points or higher, which means only the very top projects got funded, while many worthy applications will have to look elsewhere for funding or may not get built.

CalBike advocates for more money for the Active Transportation Program

For CTC to have approved projects scoring at least 85, which for the most part are very strong and deserve funding, the ATP would need an additional $1 billion in funding. Two years ago, CalBike advocated for the state to spend $2 billion on bikes and succeeded in increasing the ATP allocation to $1 billion for Cycle 6. That allowed the CTC to greenlight many more active transportation projects, but it wasn’t enough to fund all the worthwhile proposals. However, that year saw a budget surplus, and the governor has tried to claw back those additional funds in the past two deficit years.

The ATP should get at least $1 billion in funding every cycle. That’s not enough, and it’s still a tiny fraction of California’s transportation spending, but it would be an overdue signal that our state understands the value of active transportation in fighting climate change and making our streets safer and more equitable. We’ve said it before — California can’t be a climate leader if it continues to invest in highways instead of active transportation and transit. We look forward to working with state leadership this year to significantly restore the ATP through the budget process and not allow further reductions to the program.

The ATP is a classic example of induced demand, also known as “build it and they will come.” Since the program’s inception, the volume of applications for funding has grown. More significantly, the number of high-quality projects that significantly improve the safety and comfort of people who bike and walk on California’s streets has increased.

This dedicated funding source, which CalBike’s advocacy helped establish, tapped into a deep well of unmet need for separated bikeways, sidewalk gap closures, protected intersections, and more. Californians want and need the ATP. California should fully fund this program, which provides great value for a fraction of the cost of building or maintaining highways.

CalBike Continues Campaign for Safer Vehicles

November 7, 2024/by Jared Sanchez

The path to achieving critical safety improvements on California streets is rarely straightforward. CalBike supports and sponsors legislation, but bills are often amended, sometimes in ways that remove the teeth from a measure, and even those that make it through can be vetoed. But a veto or amendment isn’t the end of the road for CalBike. We continue to find ways to help move the campaigns for good ideas forward.

One example is Senator Scott Wiener’s Safer Vehicles Save Lives Bill, SB 961. A provision to require side underride guards on trucks to prevent fatalities during collisions was removed in committee. The remaining provision, the addition of intelligent speed assist (ISA) technology to cars sold in California, passed the legislature but was vetoed by the governor. Neither of these safety campaigns started or ended with this bill, however, and CalBike continues to work with partners to advocate for safer vehicles — and you can join the campaign.

Preventable fatalities in truck crashes

While you may not have heard the term “side underride guard,” you likely know that people on bikes and in cars can be injured or killed if they are pulled under a semitrailer or box-type truck during a collision. The side underride guard is an inexpensive piece of equipment to add to these vehicles that can help prevent serious injuries and fatalities in the event of a crash. CalBike partner Eric Hein, father of Riley Hein, who died in a side underride crash, has detailed the problem of underride crashes and the promise of side underride guards, if you’d like to learn more.

The people who die in these crashes aren’t statistics — an acceptable death rate over a certain number of miles traveled. Riley Hein was driving to high school on I-40 when a semi drifted into his lane on a curve in the road, wedging his car under a trailer that lacked a side guard. The truck dragged Riley for half a mile and caught on fire. Riley died at the scene. He was 16 years old.

Eric Hein has become an advocate for side underride guards on trucks, as have many family members whose loved ones have needlessly died in underride crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized that side underride guards are a valuable safety feature for 50 years. Yet, in the face of opposition from the trucking industry, it hasn’t made a rule requiring them.

FINAL California Side Underride Petition Download

California has a chance to take a different approach. The California Highway Patrol has the power to require side underride guards in California, and Eric Hein has spearheaded an administrative petition asking them to do so. You can support this effort by sending emails to Sean Duryee, Commissioner of California Highway Patrol, and Kenneth J. Pogue, Director of the Office of Administrative Law, to express your support for side underride guards. You can send both emails with one click using CalBike’s action tool.

Intelligent speed assist at the federal level

ISA is a technology that’s currently available and required on all cars in the EU. It notifies drivers, with a sound or vibration, when they go more than 10 mph over the speed limit. Speed is a factor in many fatal collisions, particularly those involving vulnerable road users. Giving drivers a safety reminder will reduce speeding and provide calmer streets that are safer for people biking and walking.

The Safer Vehicles Save Lives Bill, which would have required ISA in California, got a veto from the governor this year. In his veto message, he said this should be regulated at the federal, not state, level.

NHTSA recognizes the effectiveness of ISA in reducing speeding but has not recommended requiring it on all cars in the U.S. CalBike joined with America Walks and Families for Safe Streets to send a letter to the president and vice president, asking them to require ISA on vehicles in the federal fleet.

Washington, D.C. recently adopted ISA and some cities, including D.C., have ISA on their municipal fleets. Installing speed warnings on fleet vehicles is an excellent way to pilot this technology, and it will have the effect of slowing traffic as other drivers travel behind cars equipped with ISA.

CalBike will continue to join with our partners to advocate for this safety technology.

Federal Fleet ISA coalition letter 10-28-24 Download