The Latest Archives

Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras Show Prevalence of Speeding

July 9, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

In 2023, CalBike supported AB 645, which created a pilot program for six cities to install cameras for automated speed enforcement. San Francisco is the first to have its cameras fully installed and up and running, and the program is yielding a trove of data. The biggest takeaway will come as no surprise to people who bike and walk: a lot of drivers speed.

Useful data

San Francisco started installing its 50 speed cameras in March and completed installation in early June. The San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (SFMTA) will issue warnings until August 6, 2025, when it will start sending tickets for violations.

San Francisco has created a dashboard where the public can access data about the program. As of July 8, SFMTA has issued almost 132,000 warnings to people driving 11 mph or more over the posted speed limit, showing how widespread speeding is in the city.

Almost one-third of the speeders were clocked at just two intersections: eastbound and westbound at 2530 Fulton Street next to Golden Gate Park, between Arguello and 2nd Avenue, and northbound at 511 Bryant Street near 3rd Street (Bryant is one-way). More than 28,000 warnings were issued at the Fulton Street location and over 14,000 on Bryant Street.

Next steps for automated speed enforcement

San Jose is hoping to get speed cameras installed this summer to go live by fall, and Oakland plans to have cameras online by this winter. Glendale is aiming for late 2025, and Los Angeles plans to launch its program in 2026; there’s no start date for automated speed enforcement in Long Beach yet. If all these cities share data from their speed cameras with the public, it will provide valuable insights into driver behavior at the most dangerous intersections.

Tickets under the pilot program start at $50 and go as high as $500, but low-income drivers pay reduced fees. Given the prevalence of speeding found in San Francisco, the program could be a significant source of revenue once cities start issuing tickets. But hopefully, those numbers will go down as drivers become aware of the program. Gathering consistent data on how many people speed can reveal spots that put vulnerable road users at risk, beyond crash data. That can show where additional signage or infrastructure for traffic calming might be needed and provide a roadmap for future infrastructure improvements to make California streets safer.

Don’t Believe the Myths About VMT Mitigation

July 8, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

Recently, Big Highway — the companies that profit off expanding highways and driving California to climate ruin — spread misinformation about vehicle miles traveled (VMT) mitigation requirements driving up the cost of freeway building. So ClimatePlan, a consortium of advocacy groups of which CalBike is a member, created a fact sheet to dispel the VMT myths and set the record straight about mitigation costs and benefits. Please take a walk deep into the weeds with us as we nerd out on a proposed VMT mitigation bank and the costs of road building, both financial and societal.

VMT explained

We can’t explain VMT any better than the ClimatePlan fact sheet. Here’s their basic explanation:

“Vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) is a measure of driving.

One vehicle driving one mile = 1 vehicle mile traveled, or 1 VMT
One vehicle driving two miles or two vehicles each driving 1 mile = 2 VMT

Read the fact sheet for more details on VMT.

VMT Fact Sheet 2025 Download

Why does CalBike care about VMT?

The transportation sector is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas emissions in California, so getting people to drive less is one of the more effective ways to combat climate change. VMT affects pollution levels, which impact people biking and walking. And VMT affects quality of life. CalBike’s mission is to create livable neighborhoods where people can get where they need to go safely with a variety of transportation options. Transportation deserts, where people are forced into a car to get anywhere, are bad for communities and health.

VMT mitigation funding can be used for biking and walking infrastructure improvements, so California’s commitment to reducing VMT can support our mission of gaining more funding for active transportation projects. A proposal to create a VMT mitigation bank to collect and dispense funds to transit-oriented development projects that reduce VMT would also include funding for improved active transportation infrastructure adjacent to those projects.

What about EVs?

Electric cars and trucks solve some but not all of the issues with VMT. Projects that add highway lanes induce more driving and don’t solve the congestion problem that initiated the project in the first place. More cars on the road, whether powered by fossil fuels or electricity, means more time spent driving for those in the cars; importantly, it also means more exposure to collisions for vulnerable road users traveling on shared roadways. Plus, we can’t make the transition to electric vehicles quickly enough to prevent the worst impacts of climate chaos.

The bottom line is this: we drove ourselves into a world of extreme temperatures, extreme inequality, and extremely poor health. We can’t drive ourselves out of it — we’ll have to take the train, walk, or bike.

What California invests in grows. If we keep investing in new highway lanes, driving, pollution, and VMT will keep increasing. If we instead invest more in connected, projected bike networks, quick-build safety projects, transit priority lanes, and other projects that expand access to sustainable transportation, we’ll start to make a meaningful shift away from clogged freeways and toward a future full of bicycles.

Youth Bike Summit 2025: A Magical 3-Day Weekend

July 7, 2025/by CalBike Staff

This guest post was contributed by Joshua of the National Youth Bike Council.

The Youth Bike Summit is a three-day conference, held every year since 2011 (except in 2020 and 2021). This year, the Youth Bike Summit turned 11 years old and came to Boston for the first time at the end of May. It created a collaborative space for young people and bicycle program staff members to meet and share ideas. Politicians, students, educators, and advocates gathered to cultivate youth leadership through bicycling, celebrate youth excellence, educate everyone on civic engagement, and much more. This year, the National Youth Bike Council partnered with co-host organizations in Boston, Mattapan Food & Fitness Coalition, and Bikes Not Bombs, to put on the Summit. Over 200 attendees from 52 cities and 17 states assembled in Boston to explore the power of learning through bicycling. 53.20% of them were youth (24 and under). Together, we explored how bikes are tools for joy, leadership, and justice.

Youth Bike Summit Highlights:

1,492.5 miles biked
53% youth majority in attendance (ages 24 and under)
200% increase in organizations represented compared to 2024
27 workshops over 3 days
$16,947 saved in affordable housing for attendees
2 youth leaders honored
1 Big Bicycle Ride (and 7 other mobile workshops)

Breaking the ice

The event started on Friday evening and ran until late Sunday afternoon. Friday included icebreaker activities for the students to start the weekend with a new friend. This year, participants had UNO battles, Jenga matches, and chess duels. On the way in, attendees were greeted with an attendee goodie bag and a Youth Bike Summit 2025 edition shirt. They could show off their new items at the 360-degree spin camera or craft memory items in a makerspace provided for hands-on learning. This Youth Bike Summit also included a live singer, live musicians, and a DJ with dinner.

While Friday focused on camaraderie, Saturday focused on calls to action to the youth leaders and program staff at the 9 a.m. plenary gathering.

Massachusetts State Senator Liz Miranda gave a speech on how elected officials make a difference in the city and why speaking up is important. “Don’t forget to engage with your political leaders,” Miranda said. She finished by saying, “If your communities are not safe, if it’s not a healthy community, like the one I grew up in. You have the power to use your voice and to tell people that I am somebody that matters, and I live in your community, and I want a change.” This message was mirrored by National Youth Bike Council members Lot and Pablo, who led the crowd through chants of “Beyond the Bike!”

One of the staples of the Youth Bike Summit is peer-to-peer encouragement and the opportunity to inspire the next generation with the stories of today. Anika P, the youth keynote speaker, a college sophomore from Massachusetts, shared her story. She discussed reviving a bike club at her school and how that led her to eventually speak with her state senators and representatives on bike safety awareness and legislation to make roads safer for bicyclists.

Vivian Ortiz, Boston’s first “bike mayor,” also joined the leaders of the host city and the National Youth Bike Council members in celebrating the distances that individuals have traveled to get to the event during the plenary.

Everybody Learns at the Youth Bike Summit

Presentations were on the theme of “Beyond the Bike.” Learning sessions included information on bike mechanics, bike art, group rides, environmental justice, and bikes on campus. Attendees could participate in mobile workshops, including a tour of the Neponset River Greenway, and there was a big group ride on the last day. Participants talked about learning to fix bikes through an internship program for high school students and the challenges of running programs like that.

Not all mobile workshops featured bicycling; some captured the essence of staying active while educating. For example, one mobile session challenged participants to experience safety through a new lens as they evaluated crosswalks and pedestrian behavior.

One Big Ride

On the last day of the Youth Bike Summit, everyone gathered for a huge bicycle ride, which included local riders from Boston Critical Mass, who helped lead the ride and showed off what Boston biking has to offer. The 10-mile ride through Boston started at Roxbury Community College, headed toward UMass Boston, continued through Franklin Park, and finished at Roxbury Community College. The ride was a joyous event, with riders shouting good morning to neighbors in passing, ringing their bells, and cheering at large intersections.

After the ride, the Youth Bike Summit ended with a visioning session. This year’s visioning session included speakers Alison Dewey of the League of American Bicyclists and Jose Masso, the Chief of Human Services for the City of Boston. Both speakers expressed support, offered motivation, and shared resources for staying involved in bicycling and community organizing.

We deeply appreciate our sponsors, who are responsible for helping create an affordable and rewarding experience at the 2025 Youth Bike Summit. We are glad to credit the following organizations in helping gear up the next generation of youth leaders: Hub Luv (The Title Sponsor), Lawson Valentine Foundation, Boston Children’s Hospital, SRAM, The League of American Bicyclists, Toole Design, Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA), Piscitello Law, Invest in Women Entrepreneurs, and Velocity Bicycle Cooperative. We are extremely thankful to our partners who helped craft the 2025 Youth Bike Summit experience: Manhattan Portage, Cycling Out Loud, Helmet Flair, and Redshift Sports.

We can’t wait for next year!

CTC Backs Doomed Highway Project

July 3, 2025/by Laura McCamy

Meetings of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) usually fly under the radar with few, if any, members of the public aware they’re happening, much less showing up to comment. But a raft of grants proposed for contested highway projects, including the Highway 99 interchange in Fresno and State Route 37 widening, drew opposition from transportation advocates and attention in the press.

CalBike Executive Director Kendra Ramsey joined a number of other advocates in attending the June 26, 2025, CTC meeting. She testified against funding to add lanes to SR 37, which is already subject to flooding and will be permanently underwater, due to sea level rise, by the middle of the century.

Where California invests its transportation funds is crucial

As our climate grows hotter and our roads and freeways become ever more congested and unmanageable, we need new solutions. We need to invest in projects such as those proposed in the Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, which would add connected bike networks to state transportation plans, helping to make biking a viable transportation option for people of all ages and abilities. We need to increase funding for the Active Transportation Program (ATP), which supports biking and walking projects across California. We need to invest in transportation infrastructure that provides options outside of a car, not trapping people behind a steering wheel.

Yet Caltrans and our elected leaders are moving in the wrong direction. Governor Gavin Newsom stripped $400 million from the ATP last year, leaving the program able to fund only 13 projects in its last cycle. Despite a promise to restore the funds, the budget deal just approved by the legislature and signed by the governor doesn’t give back the missing funds. And Caltrans continues to promote projects that don’t offer long-term solutions to our transportation problems but do add to the carbon burden in our atmosphere.

California pays lip service to addressing climate change in numerous policies, but its actions — especially its budget allocations — turn those policies into hollow promises. It’s time for our state to invest in active transportation and fostering neighborhoods where walking, biking, and taking transit are comfortable and easy ways to get around.

Moving toward invest/divest

Leaders consistently use budget shortfalls as an excuse for underfunding sustainable transportation, but we have the money. We simply need to divest from climate-killing projects that move us backward instead of forward. CalBike’s Invest/Divest campaign seeks to redirect funding from reckless highway building and use that money to give Californians true transportation choices.

The advocates didn’t win this round at the CTC. Predictably, the commission voted to allocate funds for SR 37 and other projects opposed by advocates. But this is a long campaign that won’t be won or lost in one hearing. We succeeded in shedding light on CTC and Caltrans operations, which depend on a lack of public scrutiny to keep building highways like it’s 1979. CalBike will continue to be vigilant, turn up with our allies, testify at hearings, and let our state transportation leadership know they will be held to account for their decisions.

CalBike Insider: Following Up on the Complete Streets Bill

June 26, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

CalBike does a lot of behind-the-scenes work to encourage state agencies to develop better policies and to follow up on the implementation of bills passed in prior years. One law we’re following closely is SB 960, the Complete Streets Bill. CalBike worked tirelessly for almost a decade to pass a Complete Streets requirement on state roads; now that it’s law, we continue to work with Caltrans to ensure that it’s properly implemented.

The devil is in the details

At our meeting with Caltrans on June 4, 2025, we were encouraged by the staff’s willingness to work with us and the progress made on several fronts in improving the agency’s Complete Streets implementation.

However, there are two areas where we’re not seeing much movement, so we followed up with a letter to California State Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin and Caltrans leadership outlining our concerns.

Transit priority

One of the requirements in the 2024 Complete Streets Bill is that Caltrans prioritize projects and project elements that improve the speed and efficiency of public transit. Transit is a vital element of California’s sustainable transportation transformation, providing connections that allow people biking and walking to go farther.

We are concerned that Caltrans doesn’t yet have a director’s policy or design guidance for transit priority facilities. These are essential first steps needed for planners and engineers to include transit features in upcoming Caltrans projects. We urge the agency to move quickly to put these elements in place.

Encroachment permits

One of the roadblocks to safe biking and walking infrastructure is the agonizingly slow pace at which Caltrans approves encroachment permits. Local communities need these permits from Caltrans when a project on local streets crosses or overlaps with a state-controlled right-of-way. Many state routes serve as local streets, and freeway on and off ramps dot urban landscapes, often creating safety hazards for people using active transportation. Slow permitting can hold up projects or discourage local governments from planning infrastructure upgrades that touch Caltrans roads.

The Complete Streets Bill calls for faster permitting for Complete Streets projects that intersect state routes. So far, Caltrans has not taken the necessary steps to implement this high-priority element of the new law. We hope to see the agency act with urgency to put staff in place to make this happen in the very near future.

SB 960 Implementation Follow-Up Download

California Cities with the Best and Worst Bike Networks

June 24, 2025/by Kendra Ramsey

PeopleForBikes has released its 2025 City Ratings, assessing the connectedness and stress level of the bike networks in over 2,500 cities worldwide, including many in the U.S. The survey rated 305 California cities, with three placing in the national top 10 for their city size.

As CalBike works to pass the Bike Highways Bill, AB 891, it’s worth taking a closer look at how well our infrastructure serves people trying to get to common destinations by bike.

Ratings methodology

PeopleForBikes uses Bike Network Analysis (BNA), a software tool that automates the scoring process. The ratings assess levels of traffic stress of different types of bike infrastructure and access to jobs, educational institutions, core services, retail, and recreational facilities, as well as transit connections.

The survey looks at factors with the acronym SPRINT: safe speeds, protected bike lanes, reallocated space for biking and walking, intersection treatments, network connections, and trusted data. Communities are scored on a scale from 1 to 100. The only place that received a perfect score of 100 is Mackinac Island, Michigan, a car-free island in Lake Huron.

California cities in the top 10

Among large cities, San Francisco tied for fourth with a score of 63. The two top mid-sized cities are both in California: Davis, scoring 81, and Berkeley, with a score of 73. The top-ranked small cities skewed higher, so no California communities made the list, but Sonoma had the second-highest score in California at 74, and Ojai, Point Arena, Stanford, and Davenport all had scores of 65 or above.

Fresno was one of the large cities with the most improvement, bumping its score from 19 to 26. While Fresno has a ways to go before it becomes a comfortable place to bike for people at all levels, it’s an impressive increase.

Chico made the list of cities on the rise, a designation for communities that have made big improvements in recent years. Chico’s score rose from 44 in 2019, the first year it was included in the survey, to 57 in 2025. Chico also has two bike projects in the pipeline that will improve its infrastructure further. See the PeopleForBikes Transformative Projects List to find infrastructure projects in your area.

California state rankings

Many California cities stand out for their excellent or improving bike infrastructure, and 32 cities had ratings of 50 or above. But, as a state, our average ranking in 2025 is 29, one point below the national average of 30 and lower than the other West Coast states, which both had average rankings of 40.

The lowest-rated location in California was Penngrove, which got just 10 out of 100. Los Angeles scored 25. San Jose got a 33 and Sacramento a 36 rating.

It’s clear we have a lot of work to do to achieve CalBike’s vision of a transportation system that gives Californians choices of how to get around safely, rather than forcing people into cars. The Bike Highways Bill, AB 954, will create a pilot program to create regional protected, connected bike networks. It’s a critical step toward achieving the infrastructure we need for a future full of bikes, and it needs your support. Please send an email to support more bike highway networks.

What is the 85th Percentile Rule?

June 23, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

And why it belongs in the dustbin of transportation history.

In 2021, CalBike helped pass the Slower Speeds Save Lives Bill, AB 43, authored by former California Assemblymember (and current U.S. Representative) Laura Friedman. The bill gives communities limited relief from the 85th percentile rule, allowing them more leeway to lower speed limits. This year, CalBike supports AB 1014 (Rogers), which will extend the ability to set lower speed limits on state-controlled roadways. CalBike’s Executive Director, Kendra Ramsey, is testifying in support of AB 1014 at the Senate Transportation Committee.

The history of the 85th percentile rule

When a local government wants to lower the speed limit on a particular street, it has to do a speed study to determine how fast drivers are going on that street. Under the 85th percentile rule, the new speed limit must be set within 5 mph of the speed that 85% of drivers travel at or below.

As with most things that are no longer working well, the 85th percentile rule for setting speed limits arose to serve a genuine need. In rural areas, towns would sometimes set speed traps, lowering the speed limits within town boundaries much lower than those of the surrounding area. Towns raised revenue by handing out speeding tickets to unsuspecting motorists.

The 85th percentile rule was never designed to determine safe speeds in urban areas, yet it is now widely applied for that purpose.

There has been a concerted effort across the country to change the way speed limits are set.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and more recently, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) have all called for moving away from using the 85th percentile as the basis for setting speed limits.

In 2018, former Assemblymember Friedman initiated a bill to revise the ingrained 85th percentile rule, which was eventually transformed into the Zero Traffic Fatalities Task Force, in which the body firmly focused on the rule. This led to the passage of AB 43 in 2021.

How does the 85th percentile rule work?

The 85th percentile rule is easiest to explain with an example. If the current speed limit on a street is 35 mph and a speed study shows that 85% of drivers are driving at or below 37 mph, the 85th percentile rule would dictate that the speed limit remain unchanged because it fits driver behavior. Even if the community had determined that 35 mph was too fast for safety, the local government’s hands would be tied.

In some cases, the rule leads to higher speed limits. For example, if the speed study showed that 85% of drivers in that 35 mph zone were going 41 mph or slower, the local government would have to raise the speed limit to 40 mph.

What AB 43 did to speed limits

Under AB 43, communities can reduce speeds in business zones without a speed study. In cases where a speed study is still required, California jurisdictions have more flexibility to lower speed limits. San Francisco has helpful resources on this topic, and UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, along with ARTC Logistics, developed a California Safe Speeds Toolkit to help local governments set safer speed limits.

For example, if a speed study showed that 85% of drivers traveled up to 34 mph in a 35 mph zone, under the old rule, the city would need to keep the posted speed at 35 mph. Under AB 43, the city has the option to round down and reduce the speed limit to 30 mph.

In addition, communities can reduce speeds by another 5 mph after an engineering study in areas with high volumes of bike or pedestrian traffic or in areas that are designated as safety corridors.

Why California needs lower speed limits on state routes

Speed is a factor in at least 25% of traffic fatalities in California. Even at the relatively low speeds in urban areas, collisions can be fatal, particularly for seniors and children. As the cars, trucks, and SUVs on the road have gotten heavier and their grilles higher, injuries to vulnerable road users hit by cars, even at slow speeds, are more likely to be life-threatening.

Some of the most dangerous streets in many California cities and towns are state routes. These local highways turn into city streets while still funneling fast-moving traffic past homes and schools. AB 1014 would extend the same speed limit setting parameters to these state routes. Caltrans would be empowered to set prima facie speed limits of 25 or 20 mph in certain areas. It would also have the option to round down instead of up from the 85th percentile speed and to reduce speeds by another 5 mph in safety corridors and near facilities used by people biking and walking.

Of course, speed limits can’t prevent all reckless and dangerous driving. We need improved infrastructure for that. But measures like AB 43 and AB 1014 are an excellent start and may provide an impetus for better infrastructure if speed safety targets aren’t met.

CalBike’s Legislative Agenda at the Halfway Point

June 11, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

On June 6, bills with any chance of becoming law this year left their house of origin. Senate bills had to pass a vote of the full Senate and move to Assembly committees for review, and vice versa. We’re happy to report that our two priority bills made it past the midway point, though one may face a tougher road in the Senate. Here’s the status of all the bills we’re supporting and following in the 2025 session.

Fire service bill doesn’t move forward

CalBike rarely opposes bills, but we had to speak out against AB 612 (Rogers), which would have increased fire department authority over bikeway planning decisions. Too often, fire departments oppose new bikeways because they claim they will hinder access in case of a fire. Somehow, cars parked along the curb don’t create an obstacle for the fire department.

We appreciated the discussions that happened around this bill. And we’re encouraged by the efforts of Mike Wilson, who helped launch an innovative program in Berkeley to leverage the fire service’s expertise in prevention to take a preventative approach to street trauma. It’s a win-win for street safety advocates and fire departments, whose EMS staff are first on the scene to aid most traffic violence victims.

Bills we’re supporting

This year is the first year of California’s two-year legislative session, which means that some bills will become two-year bills. A two-year bill is put on pause this year and revived in January 2026, with a deadline to move forward before it’s declared DOA. The two-year option can be helpful if a bill needs more time or revisions to gather the support needed to pass. One of the 10 bills CalBike is supporting this year became a two-year bill, one died in the Assembly, and the rest have passed their first house. Here’s the status.

School Streets Bill (AB 382, Berman): This much-needed measure would lower the speed limit around schools from 25 mph to 20 mph. Even a few miles per hour can make a big difference in the severity of injuries when a car hits a pedestrian, and children are particularly vulnerable. This law will give drivers more time to see children and stop; it’s an excellent way to move California closer to Vision Zero.

Red Light Camera Reform (AB 720, Ashby): Automated enforcement for car drivers running red lights is legal throughout California but problematic, which has led some municipalities to abandon red light cameras. This bill seeks to reform the way red light cameras are regulated and tickets are issued to make the system more equitable and effective.

Intelligent Speed Assist for Dangerous Drivers (AB 981, Gipson): One of CalBike’s sponsored bills last year, Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 961, would have phased in intelligent speed assist (ISA) for all new vehicles. It passed the legislature, but the governor vetoed it. AB 981, which has become a two-year bill, is currently written as a pilot in Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, and Kern Counties. Drivers convicted of reckless driving would be required to install active ISA, much the way those convicted of drunk driving can be mandated to have ignition interlock devices that prevent them from driving drunk. Active ISA prevents a vehicle from going above the posted speed. We’re interested to see how this develops. The EU now requires ISA on all new vehicles, and we hope it will become a standard safety feature here in the near future.

Slower State Routes (AB 1014, Rogers): In 2021, CalBike helped pass AB 43, which gave California municipalities more flexibility to lower speed limits than the 85th percentile rule would have allowed. This bill extends the same option to Caltrans on state routes that aren’t freeways. Since these routes often run through neighborhoods — bringing dangerous, speeding traffic — this bill could represent a significant step toward safer streets.

License Plate Covers (AB 1085, Stefani): This bill would make manufacturing, selling, or using a cover that obscures the license plate number of a car illegal in California.

Caltrans Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (AB 1132, Schiavo): This bill would have required Caltrans to identify what makes communities resilient to climate-caused transportation disruptions. It died in the suspense file.

Remove Bikeway Roadblocks Bill (SB 71, Wiener): Senator Wiener authored a bill during the pandemic giving active transportation projects a temporary exemption from CEQA, California’s environmental review law. This bill would make the CEQA exemption permanent.

Sustainable Transportation Permitting (SB 445, Wiener): This bill speeds up the permitting and construction of sustainable transportation projects, including bikeways. It will also allow communities to fix dangerous road segments more quickly, thus reducing the heavy toll of traffic violence.

Safe Crossings Save Lives (SB 671, Cervantes): This bill seeks to make traffic signals more pedestrian-friendly. To achieve this, it includes a requirement that California inventory existing pedestrian signals on state-controlled roadways to understand the existing condition. This will help direct funding and maintenance where they are most needed.

E-bike bills

With six bills relating to e-bike regulation introduced this year, they need their own category. Unfortunately, the bill we felt had the most promise died in the Assembly. The other five all passed their first house.

The one that didn’t make it

A bill to clarify the classification of some of the vehicles illegally sold as e-bikes (SB 455, Blakespear) fell victim to the dreaded suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The measure would have reclassified “e-bikes” with higher motor-assisted speeds than the 28 mph allowed under California law. It would have created a new class of motorized bikes, low-power mopeds, and moved some of these bikes into the current moped or motorcycle categories. This would have triggered registration and licensing requirements and prohibited dealers from selling them to underage riders. There was some pushback from the DMV, which would have a slew of new vehicles to register, and the motorcycle industry, which resisted having these bikes classified as electric motorcycles.

We think this measure had a lot of promise, and we’re grateful to Senator Catherine Blakespear for bringing stakeholders together to discuss this issue. CalBike will be convening stakeholders from a range of communities to discuss the future of e-bike regulation in the coming months, and we hope to pick up where this discussion left off.

E-bike bills moving forward

Two of the five remaining e-bike bills relate to classification issues, one places an age limit on e-bike sales, and two increase the penalties for e-bike violations. CalBike is watching these bills; we haven’t taken a position for or against them.

E-Bike Application Prohibition (AB 545, Davies): This measure prohibits the selling of applications that modify the speed capability of an electric bicycle. This bill is an extension of a bill last year (AB 1774, Dixon), which prohibited the selling of speed-enhancing devices.

E-Bike Confiscation (AB 875, Muratsuchi): This bill would clarify that police can confiscate the illegal e-motorcycles that are often sold as e-bikes, something some local jurisdictions are already doing. While these bikes aren’t street-legal and are subject to law enforcement, we don’t think the police need another pretext to stop and harass young people of color.

Penalizing E-Bikes (AB 544, Davies): E-bikes are required to have a red rear reflector or flashing light when operated at night, just like all bikes. This bill would require e-bikes to have this reflector or light during all hours. Current law requires minors to wear helmets on bikes or face a $25 fine. This bill allows a diversion if the minor takes the DMV’s online e-bike safety class and proves they have a helmet.

Class 3 E-Bike Sales Prohibition (AB 965, Dixon): This bill prohibits the sale of a new or used Class 3 e-bike to anyone under 16. Class 3 bikes use pedal assist only, with a top speed of 28 mph, and are already subject to more limitations than Class 1 and 2 bikes, which have a top speed of 20 mph. No one under 16 is allowed to operate a Class 3 bike, and all riders must wear helmets. Given those requirements, this measure seems superfluous, but that’s a theme in the e-bike legislation this year.

The eMoto Bill (SB 586, Jones): This bill creates a new eMoto classification, which would cover some of the vehicles currently sold as e-bikes that don’t fit the classification system. The devices classified as eMotos wouldn’t be street legal; they would be allowed for off-road use only.

Bills we’re watching

CalBike is watching 11 bills. We haven’t taken a position on these bills, but we’re monitoring their progress through the legislature because they could have an impact on active transportation.

In addition to the six e-bike bills listed above, we’re watching:

State Building Standards (AB 306, Schultz/Rivas): This bill would freeze state, county, and city building codes in California for six years. It passed the Assembly and is in the Senate.
Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 (AB 1243, Addis): This bill would establish the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Program to be administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency to require fossil fuel polluters to pay their fair share of the damage caused by greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. It has become a two-year bill.
Regional Housing Needs and Transportation Plans (AB 1275, Elhawary): This bill would harmonize the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy processes to ensure the needs of both existing populations and projected populations are met, and to ensure local governments have plans for sufficient housing in climate-friendly locations near transit, jobs, and services. It passed the Assembly and is in the Senate.
San Francisco Bay Area Local Revenue Measure (SB 63, Wiener/Arreguín): This bill would authorize the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to propose a revenue measure to the voters in its jurisdiction to fund the operation, expansion, and transformation of the San Francisco Bay Area’s public transportation system, as well as other transportation improvements. It passed the Senate and is in the Assembly.
Study for Road and Safety Improvements (SB 78, Seyarto): This bill would require Caltrans to conduct a study to identify certain locations in the state highway system with regard to vehicle collisions, and projects that could improve road safety at each of those locations. It passed the Senate and is in the Assembly.

To stay up to date on the latest developments with all the bike-related legislation, check CalBike’s Legislative Watch page. Subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on the most crucial bills for active transportation and periodic reassessments of the status of all the bills we’re supporting or watching.

CalBike Works with Caltrans to Move Complete Streets Forward

June 11, 2025/by Jared Sanchez

In 2024, with help from our allies and thousands of CalBike supporters, we passed the Complete Streets Bill, SB 960, requiring Caltrans to add or upgrade facilities for people biking and walking when they repair state routes that serve those travel modes. Passing the bill was just the first step; as we’ve seen with the rollout of California’s new daylighting law, lack of implementation, based on so-called lack of funding, can get in the way of the effectiveness of new safety regulations. So, CalBike is working with Caltrans to ensure the agency takes active transportation safety seriously and better implements Complete Streets on its highways.

Sitting down with Caltrans

Last week, we met with Caltrans’ leadership, including Acting Complete Streets Lead Advisor Susan Lindsay and other key executives, to discuss progress toward implementing SB 960.

Every project in Caltrans’ State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) that isn’t on a limited-access freeway should be evaluated for active transportation and transit infrastructure needs. In fact, many state routes run through neighborhoods and serve as local streets where people walk, bike, and take the bus.

Caltrans outlined some plans to implement its Complete Streets policy during projects on those routes and comply with SB 960. These include transparency: Caltrans will post justifications for recommended Complete Streets elements included or excluded from projects online. Caltrans has a form to document this for each project, but it hasn’t been available to the public. In 2023 and 2024, CalBike had to make public records requests to obtain the project records we reviewed for our Incomplete Streets report. We commend Caltrans for taking this step.

There will also be more accountability within Caltrans. Rather than district personnel making the final decision about new bikeways or sidewalks, leading to large variations in implementation among Caltrans districts, high-level staff from headquarters will review cases where district staff have not included recommended Complete Streets elements in SHOPP projects. This formalization of the exception to the Complete Streets policy is meant to narrow allowable exceptions and streamline application across districts. Caltrans will also report on this to the California Transportation Commission, which oversees funding for the program.

Caltrans reporting

In addition to these reporting and transparency steps, as well as several other new policies, Caltrans is undertaking a review of the 2026 SHOPP projects that had recommended Complete Streets elements. This is similar to the analysis CalBike did of the 2024 projects, and the agency has promised to share its findings with us. When CalBike released our Incomplete Streets report, we had statistics that Caltrans hadn’t compiled internally, and we’re glad to see the agency take up the practice.

CalBike plans to keep reviewing and analyzing Caltrans SHOPP project documents to double-check its progress on Complete Streets. Caltrans has offered quarterly meetings with CalBike to share information and input on the process to provide Complete Streets for all users.

Working with Caltrans has always been part of CalBike’s mission. Our agency work is less visible than our legislative advocacy, but it’s no less important. So, when you see a new crosswalk or protected bikeway on a Caltrans-maintained road in your neighborhood, you can thank the Complete Streets Bill and CalBike’s advocacy for Caltrans to step up since 2008, as well as tireless advocacy from local partners, that brings the changes to the street level.

California’s Budget Prioritizes Freeway Expansion Over Safe Streets

June 9, 2025/by Laura McCamy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 9, 2025

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

Sacramento — CalBike and other advocates had a modest ask from California’s nearly $20 billion 2025 transportation budget: give back the $400 million that was stripped from the Active Transportation Program (ATP) in 2024, as the legislature promised to do in last year’s budget. Yet the legislature’s version, released today, includes no additional funding for the ATP.

Last year’s cutbacks limited the program to funding just 13 projects for safe biking and walking infrastructure across the state. The missing funds could immediately jumpstart 30 local infrastructure projects that applied for funding and are ready to break ground.

In tight budget years like 2025, cuts aren’t distributed evenly. Programs backed by powerful industries, such as money to build new highway lanes, receive billions despite their negative impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, while the Active Transportation Program, which saves lives and provides climate solutions, is left begging for crumbs.

“The Active Transportation Program is the victim of its own success, continuously oversubscribed. Yet the governor and some of our lawmakers fail to recognize its value,” says CalBike Policy Director Jared Sanchez. “The disregard for biking and walking at the state level undercuts state climate policy and makes it harder for local governments to meet residents’ demands for safer streets.”

Improvements that reduce traffic fatalities and make it safer and more appealing to walk and bike are very popular in California communities. The number of projects looking for ATP funding grows every cycle, and the number of high-scoring projects eligible for funding increases.

The demand for local active transportation infrastructure, which has been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities for people using all transportation modes and moves California closer to its climate goals, continues to grow. We should increase the budget for the ATP, yet lawmakers have slashed its budget, nearly leading the California Transportation Commission to cancel the most recent funding cycle due to a lack of funds.

Climate change isn’t something we can deal with down the road; it’s here, now. Safer streets shouldn’t be a “someday when we have extra cash” project, but an urgent necessity to prevent more children and other vulnerable road users from dying needlessly. Our budget priorities show our values. This year, California has sided with polluters over people.