1017 L Street #288
Sacramento, CA 95814
© California Bicycle Coalition 2025
Response to CARB on Ending the E-Bike Incentive Project
CARB’s decision to absorb the remaining funding from the E-Bike Incentive Project into Clean Cars 4 All is a telling political moment—one that mistakes “cleaner cars” for genuine progress. It’s easier to imagine replacing every gas car with an electric one than to imagine a California where people can move freely without cars at all. But the latter is what true climate leadership requires. The E-Bike Incentive Project wasn’t flawless, but it represented a rare, tangible step toward that future: a policy backed by funding that helped Californians drive less, not just differently. Reversing it is a step backward for the state and a disservice to the people who believed in it.
Requiring a car trade-in shifts the focus from helping people get around to helping them replace a vehicle. That’s the quiet but crucial difference between mobility and motors, between freedom and another form of dependency. Households across California were ready to drop a car, saving thousands every year on insurance, maintenance, and gas – money that could instead go to rent, childcare, or education. A project meant to deliver on climate goals, traffic reduction, and helping families balance checkbooks all at once.
The state is taking the wrong lessons from the turbulence of the EBIP roll out; the overwhelming demand makes clear this is a popular program that people want. Tens of thousands of Californians lined up for each round of the e-bike incentives, waiting hours online for a chance at a modest voucher. Their wants and needs are clear and simple – a new, affordable, economical way to get to work, to school, to the grocery store without being locked into the cost and burden of car ownership.
Ending that opportunity now ignores that clear demand and walks back hard-won progress toward a more livable, affordable, and sustainable California.
How South Bay Cities Enforce Car Dependence by Design
The Week Without Driving seeks to highlight that nearly a third of Californians can’t rely on driving for their personal mobility. This year, the South Bay Transit Summit in Torrance also exposed how overlapping systems of infrastructure, regulation, and enforcement leave even willing bike riders few real choices. In the South Bay, this coercion isn’t theoretical.
LA County’s South Bay offers a case study in how dependence becomes design. A refinery explosion in nearby El Segundo averting catastrophe only by luck of the wind made it an apt week to reconsider life beyond fossil fuels. Yet the region’s streets, laws, and enforcement practices make that reflection nearly impossible. Here, driving isn’t merely convenient; it’s compulsory.
The gap between what’s possible and what exists is a frequent source of frustration for locals like Grace Peng at South Bay Forward, “Torrance/Carson is the third-largest job center in LA County. El Segundo/LAX is No. 4. Providing car-free access to these jobs is not just business-friendly; it’s also the minimum requirement for responsible regional sustainability and economic vitality.”
A Region That Criminalizes Alternatives
The South Bay’s coastal streets could be an ideal place for short trips by bike or on foot: most residents live within three miles of work, school, or errands. Instead, high-speed arterials, wide intersections, and sidewalk bike riding bans make those short distances feel like hostile terrain.
Local governments have responded to the rise of e-bikes not as an opportunity to improve safety or expand access, but as a crisis to be contained. Torrance has considered banning e-bikes from sidewalks where no dedicated bike infrastructure exists — forcing riders into 45 mph traffic lanes (alongside the other South Bay refinery that blew up ten years ago: https://www.csb.gov/exxonmobil-torrance-refinery-explosion-/).
The penalty in Manhattan Beach is far more extreme. Riders report receiving municipal citations rather than standard traffic tickets, meaning the city — not the state — sets the terms. Contesting one of these citations requires a $1,500 deposit up front, returned only if the appeal succeeds. One rider who tried to challenge his ticket described paying nearly $900 in total after multiple hearings and days lost to court appearances.
“I received my ticket on Redondo Ave and 19th Street at 8:15 a.m. during peak school drop-off time,” said Mark Polak. “I had blown through the stop sign without significantly slowing, but did not interfere with anyone’s right-of-way. The policeman said he was going after bikes and cars equally — but the bicycle fine is $500, while the State of California fine for running a stop sign in a motor vehicle is $238.”
Polak added that Manhattan Beach once offered an educational diversion program for bicycle infractions. That’s gone now. “He said I might be able to negotiate the fine down with the city finance office, but when I called, they thought I was crazy. I paid the fine.”
“Now that I’ve had one ticket, I’m worried about getting another with an enhanced fine for something I do every day,” he said, noting the lack of signal sensors that detect bicycles and the absence of safe crossings on Redondo Avenue — ironically a designated bike route. “Sometimes I even run the red light very early in the morning because the sensor doesn’t register bikes.”
Another rider, Kyle Richardson, was cited while taking his two children to AdventurePlex in Manhattan Beach on an electric cargo bike.
“For years I’ve taken my kids to daycare, school, and the beach on our electric cargo bike,” Richardson said. “On the morning of August 20, 2025, I was taking my two kids to AdventurePlex — one of the more affordable childcare facilities in the South Bay. When we arrived at N Redondo Ave, the road was busy with cars. I did a rolling stop to keep momentum with our 400-pound bike and checked that no cars were coming. Still, two officers pulled me over and wrote me a $500 ticket.”
He added, “I lead a bike bus in North Torrance at Carr Elementary. The Torrance Police Department supports and has attended our bike bus. The Manhattan Beach City Council, mayor, and Police Department should do more to support families in their communities to ride their bikes to school rather than punish them with excessive fines.”
Meanwhile, cars routinely roll through stop signs, block bike lanes, and speed down residential corridors with little consequence.
Predictable poor results
Infrastructure that privileges speed over safety, ordinances that ban bikes from the only safe spaces to ride, and a ticketing regime that fines bicyclists hundreds of dollars for common-sense behavior all converge to send a single message: don’t bother trying. Even as residents look for ways to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, especially in a region defined by refineries and freeways, the system keeps them cornered, forced back into cars by design.
If the South Bay offers a preview of what happens when local policy drifts away from statewide mobility goals, it’s a warning worth heeding. The conditions that make driving mandatory here are not accidents of geography or culture; they are the predictable results of rules, enforcement priorities, and infrastructure decisions that have made any other way of getting around feel impossible.
It’s hard to miss the irony. In a week marked by yet another refinery explosion, South Bay residents were reminded that the region’s dependence on oil doesn’t just pollute the air — it dictates how people move. The smoke clears, the streets reopen, and the cycle continues: fossil fuel production and fossil fuel consumption reinforcing each other, one ticket and one traffic lane at a time.
DOT’s Dead-End Logic
DOT’s Dead-End Logic
On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation canceled grants for bike lanes, safer intersections, and pedestrian facilities with a stunning rationale: they were “hostile to motor vehicles.” In San Diego, a safety project was rescinded because it “appears to reduce lane capacity and a road diet that is hostile to motor vehicles.” In Alabama, converting a lane into a bikeway was deemed “counter to DOT’s priority of preserving or increasing roadway capacity for motor vehicles.” In Boston, a redesign of Mattapan Square was rejected for daring to change the “current auto-centric configuration” because it might “impede vehicle capacity and speed.”
This is not a misunderstanding. It is a declaration: the federal government is explicitly draining funding from active transportation in favor of cars.
If Safety Is “Hostile,” What Side Is DOT On?
Let’s be clear: Cars aren’t the enemy. But traffic violence is. And when the nation’s transportation agency labels safety improvements “hostile,” it is taking the side of pollution, congestion, and preventable deaths over common sense.
If your definition of quality of life is simply more car travel, you’ve missed the point. More cars mean more pollution, more danger, and more preventable deaths. Real quality of life comes from streets where people can move safely, breathe clean air, and choose how they get around.
Safe Streets Are Not a Partisan Luxury
This isn’t about left or right. Florida, Texas, and Alabama — hardly bastions of anti-car politics — are expanding bike paths and trail networks. Families everywhere want the same thing: streets where children can walk to school, seniors can cross safely, and anyone can ride a bike without risking their life.
To label that “hostile” is an insult to communities across the political spectrum working to make daily life safer and healthier.
CalBike Will Not Be Deterred
At CalBike, we don’t need Washington to tell us what freedom looks like. You don’t either. We know what real freedom looks like: the freedom to walk to school, ride to work, or roll to the store without fear. The freedom to breathe clean air and live in neighborhoods built for people, not traffic. The freedom to choose how we move.
The Department of Transportation may cling to an auto-centric past, but we are building the future together. So let Washington call it “hostile.” We call it progress. We call it life-saving. And we call on our friends, our allies, and every Californian who dreams of safe, vibrant streets: stay in this fight with us, because the road ahead belongs to all of us.
What to Expect When You Are Expecting a Bikeway
This post is sponsored by Bike Legal: At Bike Legal, we advocate for protected bike lanes that separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Yet even the best infrastructure cannot remove every danger. We encourage riders to protect themselves by always wearing a helmet and using lights even during the day to increase visibility. Safer streets come from both strong infrastructure and personal responsibility working together. To learn more about how Bike Legal advocates for all bicyclists, check out our blog on bicycle safety, what to do after a crash, and cyclists’ rights on the road.
So you’ve spotted a shiny new bike lane on your commute, or maybe your city just opened a “Class IV separated bikeway” (that’s planner-speak for one with real protection). Fantastic! But then come the signs. Some are obvious, some feel like they were designed by a traffic engineer after their third cup of coffee. Let’s decode them together so you know exactly where you – and your bike or e-bike – belong.
This post leans heavily on the California MUTCD 2014, Part 9: Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities, which is the state’s playbook for bikeway signs. Let’s take a tour.
Why Bikeway Signs Exist
The MUTCD makes it clear: bike signs aren’t optional decoration. They’re standardized, retroreflective, and placed with intent. Their job is to:
- Define spaces for bicycles and tell motorists when to stay out.
- Warn about hazards that could toss you over your handlebars.
- Guide you through routes, intersections, and crossings.
- Help separate users; walkers, e-bikers, skateboarders
Common Signs and What They Mean
Bike Lane (R81(CA)) – This is the core bikeway sign. It marks where a bike lane begins, continues, or ends. You’ll usually see it at every arterial street or at half-mile intervals on long stretches. It regulates both bicycle and car behavior (Page 1369)
Bicycles May Use Full Lane (R4-11) – This sign makes it clear that bicycles have the legal right to use the entire lane. It’s particularly important on streets without usable shoulders or for e-bike riders moving at traffic speed (Page 1370)
Begin Right Turn Lane, Yield to Bikes (R4-4) – Found where right-turning cars must cross a bike lane. It tells drivers to yield and watch for bicycles in the lane (Page 1369)
STOP and YIELD Signs (R1-1, R1-2) – On shared-use paths, these signs apply to bicyclists at roadway crossings. If you see a STOP sign facing your direction, you’re expected to obey it (Page 1368).
No Motor Vehicles (R5-3 / R44A(CA)) – Typically posted at entrances to bike paths. Some paths also have signage to exclude “motorized bicycles,” which apply to e-bikes, depending on local policy (Page 1370).
Bicycle Warning (W11-1) and Bicycle/Pedestrian Warning (W11-15) – Yellow diamonds that warn of bicycle crossings or shared crossings with pedestrians. They’re often placed before intersections or shared-use path crossings to alert car drivers (Page 1372).
Surface Condition Warnings (W8-10, etc.) – Signs like “BUMP,” “DIP,” or “PAVEMENT ENDS.” They’re meant for bicyclists, warning about conditions that can cause a loss of control (Page 1372).
Bike Route Guide (D11-1, M1-8) – Green directional signs that confirm you’re on a designated bike route. They sometimes include mileage to destinations and function like breadcrumbs across the network (Pages 1373–1374).
–
E-Bikes and Signage
- Speed limits: Some trails and paths set maximum speeds, often around 15 mph, regardless of whether you’re riding a traditional bike or an e-bike.
- No Motorized Bicycles: Signs with this wording may exclude certain e-bikes, particularly Class 3 models (up to 28 mph). Always check posted signs before entering a path (see Page 1370).
Final Thought: Read the Signs, Ride with Confidence
New bikeways can be confusing for riders and drivers. But once you know the signage, you’ve got the inside scoop. Think of these signs as a secret code: crack it, and you’ll always know where you belong.
And hey, the next time you roll past a “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign, don’t just pedal nervously on the edge. Sit tall. You’ve got the right to be there. The sign says so.
One last story: remember the old “Share the Road” plaques? They were meant to remind drivers to watch for bikes, but many motorists read them as instructions for bicyclists to get out of the way. The confusion was so common that agencies retired the sign in favor of clearer language. It’s a good reminder that signs evolve, just like our streets. When the message is muddled, engineers sharpen it; when drivers or riders get it wrong, the code gets rewritten.
So read the signs, ride with confidence, and know this: the language of bikeways is still being refined—and you’re part of helping everyone learn how to speak it.
A bike-first standard for “self-driving” claims
If an automaker wants to imply a car can drive independently, as certain manufacturers do with terms like “autopilot” and “full self driving” , the minimum requirement should include a high standard for safety around bicycles and other vulnerable road users, verified publicly. The League of American Bicyclists already outlines what competence for AVs looks like: treat cyclists as a distinct object class, expect the way we really ride (lane sharing, Idaho Stops, riding to give a wide berth to opening car doors), map bike infrastructure and laws, give us generous margins, slow down when uncertain, and continuously test against real cyclist scenarios.
Those principles should be codified. If a company markets “self-driving,” regulators should demand proof of safe operation around people riding bicycles. Can the system spot a rider in glare, rain, or riding around a parked van? Does it keep safe passing distance and speed? How does it handle a bike box, the end of a protected bikeway, or a weaving child? What happens when it isn’t sure? Companies should publish scenario libraries, pass/fail rates, and anonymized footage – because if they want trust, they should earn it where the stakes are highest: at the edge of the lane, the corner, and the door zone.
Clearing the language
Part of the problem is hype. Tesla’s own filings admit that “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is a driver-assist system, not autonomous driving. The company tells shareholders it plans for a robotaxi business “eventually,” but today it is solidly Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Level 2: the car can steer and accelerate, but the driver must remain fully engaged. Tesla’s product page is even plainer: “Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
Meanwhile, companies such as Waymo actually operating driverless services describe their tech as SAE Level 4, the tier where the system is the driver within a defined service area. In other words: no human monitoring from the front seat when the service is active.
The policy landscape is a patchwork by design
At the federal level, NHTSA’s Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety is voluntary guidance; helpful, but not enforceable. It explicitly notes there’s no compliance requirement and offers best-practice checklists and advice to states. That’s an invitation to inconsistency.
States have filled the vacuum, producing a map of overlapping rules, pilot programs, and efforts to establish common understanding, but have fallen short of a shared definition or standardThe National Conference of State Legislatures documents dozens of enactments and executive orders that underscore just how varied the approaches are.
One bright line in California: Vehicle Code §24011.5 (SB 1398) bars manufacturers and dealers from naming or marketing SAE Level 2 features in ways that would lead a reasonable person to believe a vehicle can drive itself. It also requires a clear, plain-English notice of functions and limitations at sale or software update. That’s the floor for truth-in-advertising; it says don’t mislead, not prove you keep people biking safe.
Sacramento has been probing the broader claims: a California judge recently let Tesla drivers pursue a class action over alleged self-driving marketing—another sign that courts and regulators are sharpening scrutiny.
Clearing the language: stop conflating assistance with autonomy
A multi-stakeholder “Clearing the Confusion” coalition (AAA, Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, National Safety Council, PAVE, SAE) already recommends universal, function-based names for driver-assistance features to cut hype and misuse. Adopting these terms is a fast way to detox the discourse around “self-driving” and help buyers understand that Level 2 assists an engaged driver.
California’s SB 1398 points in the same direction with no more suggestive labels for partial automation but it stops short of performance-backed cyclist safety claims. That’s the next step.
The future we choose
Autonomous vehicles will reshape transportation as profoundly as the arrival of the automobile a century ago. Left unchecked, they could mean more traffic, less transit, and threats to the limited space we’ve carved out for walking and biking. Done right, they could reduce car dependence, expand affordable mobility, and reclaim urban land for housing and bikeways.
Bike-Friendly Bills Bite the Dust
After several years of successful campaigns, including passing the Freedom to Walk Act,the Complete Streets Bill, and securing $1 billion for the Active Transportation Program, 2025 is shaping up to be a dismal year for active transportation efforts in Sacramento. A combination of budget shortfalls, literal and metaphorical fires, and a federal government openly hostile to the Golden State captured legislators’ attention. Bold steps sucked up most of the attention and the steady progress toward safer streets took a hit, though legislators found time to pass several minor e-bike regulations.
Killed by suspense (i.e. the state budget)
We won’t have the final tally until the governor finishes signing bills on October 12, but the suspense file took out CalBike’s Quick-Build bill.
The death of the Quick-Build Bill, AB 891, which went on suspense in August, was a shock. The bill, which would give Caltrans expanded ability to use quick-build methods to swiftly fix road hazards, had sailed through the legislative process. Caltrans didn’t oppose it, and we anticipated an easy passage.
Quick-build has been adopted by many communities, but Caltrans rarely uses it on state routes that double as local streets. With low-cost materials and a shorter planning time, quick-build’s quick fixes can save the lives of vulnerable road users and are cheaper and faster to build than traditional road projects. It’s strange to see a bill that would save California money get tanked in the Appropriations Committee, but that’s the mystery of the suspense file.
The demise of the Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, was expected. The author has now pulled the bill after amendments stripped it of most of its substance due to Senate Transportation committee concerns that the bill went too far. Assemblymember Steve Bennett hasn’t wavered in his support for bike highways; he plans to return next year with a revamped bill. We think this concept is an excellent way to approach the need for connected, protected bike routes that facilitate regional bike travel and we’re looking forward to working with Bennett on his new legislation.
Budget woes hit active transportation harder than highways
We had held out a sliver of hope to secure more money for the Active Transportation Program through the Cap-and-Trade (now Cap-and-Invest) reauthorization, but that window has closed. The ATP will have to struggle through another cycle with inadequate funding unless legislators make up the shortfall and return the $400 million cut from the program in next year’s budget.
The ATP represents a tiny fraction of California’s $20 billion transportation budget, but it has been the first place Governor Gavin Newsom has cut in tough budget times. It’s frustrating to watch California fall even more behind on its climate goals while pouring money into climate-killing highway projects. We will continue to work with our allies to redirect our state’s spending priorities next year.
The only bikes that got attention are electric
While legislators didn’t stand up for active transportation and safe streets where it counts, they did cave to the clamor for e-bike regulation with a slate of e-bike bills. Two of these bills have been passed and signed by the governor already and we expect the same for the remaining three bills. The one bill CalBike supported, SB 455, died in committee.
The evolving e-bike market does need better regulation, but the mix of bills moving through the legislature this year will only add to the confusion. Look for an announcement from CalBike soon as we take steps to build consensus on e-bike regulation.
Finding reasons for hope
Not everything is doom and gloom this season. CalBike is actively working with Caltrans on the implementation of SB 960, the Complete Streets law, and we’re hopeful that will herald greater investments in biking, walking, and transit infrastructure from the state’s SHOPP program. While the statewide e-bike incentive rollout has proceeded slowly, more and more local governments, utility companies, and other agencies are providing financial help for people who want to get around by e-bike. That, in turn, is increasing the number of bikes on the streets, leading to greater safety in numbers for bike riders.
The challenges of this year point the direction for future action. We need to elect stronger bike champions in greater numbers to the Assembly and Senate as well as local governments. California will elect a new governor in 2026, and having a state executive who understands and cares about active transportation and its role in mitigating the climate crisis would make a big difference. Look to CalBike for endorsements during the next election cycle.
As bike advocates, we know not to lose hope because of a couple of setbacks. We’re in this for the long haul.
Arroyo Vista’s Bike Bus: A Community in Motion
It was a verdant September morning in South Pasadena when we joined the Arroyo Vista Elementary School Bike Bus. The sun was just beginning to warm the streets, bicycle bells rang out like punctuation marks, and the K-pop Demon Hunters soundtrack floated through the air. What could have been a routine Tuesday became something else entirely: a glimpse of how change takes root, not in sweeping gestures, but in the day-to-day choices of families who decide to ride together, transforming children’s bicycles from a toy into a tool to get around their neighborhood.
The Arroyo Vista & Marengo Elementary bike buses began under the guidance of South Pas Active, a local advocacy group, and has since been adopted and nurtured by parents and the PTA. What started as a one time event two years ago is now a fixture of school life — a weekly ritual that some students have carried with them into their middle school years, graduating from a group ride to daily independent commutes.
How They Got Rolling
Like any good bike ride, momentum built steadily, thanks to the persistence of parents like Andrea Knopf and Kristen Pumphrey. Both recognized early on that the bike bus couldn’t survive on enthusiasm alone — it needed institutional backing and community buy-in. Kristen worked from the inside to secure formal support within the PTA, ensuring the program had legitimacy and visibility within the school. Andrew, living just blocks away from Arroyo Vista, brought the day-to-day commitment: showing up, organizing families, and treating the bike bus as an extension of her own front yard.
Together, they transformed a neighborhood experiment into a schoolwide tradition. Their efforts rippled outward: families rallied to protect the bike lanes that made the routes possible, gathering 200 signatures to preserve Grand Avenue Slow Streets. And with PTA support, the initiative expanded further, leading to the creation of a complementary “walk bus” that now runs every Friday.
Overcoming Concerns
Parents’ first questions were predictable: Is it safe? Will it take too much time? The answers, Andrea and Kristen found, came through practice. “Safety in numbers” is more than a slogan, it’s lived in reality. And once families saw the joy of riding together, the excuses lost their hold.
Keys to Success
- Consistency: rain or shine, the bike bus rolls.
- Commitment: three or four parents who won’t quit form the backbone.
- Community: WhatsApp chats keep coordination casual; school newsletters and PTA updates make it official.
- Partnership: the school added bike racks, extended cones to hold space, and the principal now references the bike bus with pride.
Andrea captured the spirit of it best: “I had tears in my eyes because we are building something amazing.”
Getting Started? Start Simple.
- Begin with one route, one day a week.
- Younger kids (especially K–2) usually ride with a caregiver.
- Independence grows over time; several riders now commute daily to middle school.
- Follow the “always bring a friend” rule to build momentum.
Looking Ahead
The bike bus has become woven into the culture of Arroyo Vista. This October, the PTA and parents will host an on-campus bike clinic with tune-ups, safety fittings, and a bike rodeo. What began as an experiment is now a tradition — and a testament to what happens when advocacy connects with community.
At Arroyo Vista, biking to school is no longer just a way to get from home to class. It is a story about independence, about building trust, about the joy of starting the day in motion. And most of all, it is a reminder that the future of safe streets begins here, with kids who believe riding together is simply the way to go.