featured Archives

Support Proposed CARB Budget with $18 Million for E-Bike Incentives

October 2, 2023/by Kendra Ramsey

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has released a proposed budget for the next fiscal year that includes $80 million in vehicle purchase incentive equity programs. The budget allocates $18 million of that for e-bike incentives. CalBike applauds CARB for recognizing the importance of this program and providing ongoing resources to support e-bike incentives.

Please send an email in support of $18 million for e-bikes to CARB to help ensure this critical active transportation funding stays in the budget.

E-bike vouchers in high demand

The pilot of CARB’s E-Bike Incentive Project has not yet launched, though the soft launch is expected to begin soon. Still, it’s clear that interest in the program is high. CARB is in the process of adding $3 million to the pilot funding of $10 million to provide additional resources for what is certain to be a popular program.

If the additional $18 million is approved, total funding for statewide e-bike incentives will be $31 million. CARB staffers can’t confirm whether the additional funding will augment the pilot round of incentives or go toward an additional funding window later in 2024. CARB and the program administrator may be waiting to see how the initial rollout goes before making this decision.

What’s clear is that there is a high demand for e-bike incentives to help low-income Californians afford this practical, essential transportation option. We hope CARB and the legislature provide ongoing funding to help more Californians get around by bike.

Caltrans: We Need Complete Streets at Freeway Interchanges

September 28, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

When Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed CalBike’s Complete Streets bill in 2019, he assured Californians that we didn’t need the mandate for safer streets. Caltrans, he noted, had new leadership and would implement the needed changes without legislation.

Caltrans does appear to have made some positive changes in the past four years. CalBike is working on a report to assess how well the agency has done and where Complete Streets upgrades are lacking. Take our Complete Streets Survey.

However, as the agency prepares to approve new Complete Streets design standards, a last-minute change would exempt freeway interchanges from Complete Streets evaluation, ensuring that some of the most dangerous spots on our roadways will remain lethal to vulnerable road users.

Last week, CalBike sent a letter to Caltrans and CalSTA leadership urging them to apply Complete Streets design standards to all of Caltrans’ rights-of-way that serve as local streets, including interchanges. We hope you’ll add your voice, too (see below).

9/22/23 Comment Letter on Caltrans DIB-94 Download

Complete Streets design guidance for Caltrans engineers

A new Caltrans Design Information Bulletin, DIB-94, Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance, will set official standards and guidance for state, regional, and local transportation agencies when adding Complete Streets to the state-controlled road network. CalBike has been impressed with the development of the standards as Caltrans works to prioritize Complete Streets. The latest DIB is exactly the type of guidance we need in California to realize Caltrans’ and California State Transportation Agency’s (CalSTA) Complete Streets vision; meet climate action goals; and create a cleaner, safer, more equitable, and more connected active transportation system for all users.

However, there’s a major exception in the bulletin that is, literally, big enough to drive a truck through. None of the official standards and guidance are required where a street intersects with a Caltrans-controlled freeway.

In other words, on any local street that interchanges with a freeway, arguably the most dangerous part of the transportation system, safety upgrades at the interchange are not required and won’t be added without a lengthy additional process.

With this exception, Caltrans makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create connected bikeway networks in many communities. The agency would never build a road that dead-ended at an intersection, then started up again on the other side, yet that’s what this guidance would effectively create for bike improvements.

According to transportation officials, this is because converting an interchange into a Complete Street, with narrower lanes, would be too difficult for freight trucks to navigate. But trucks already navigate narrower roads as soon as they enter a right-of-way that has a safer street in place. This justification, once again, reveals the supremacy our transportation leaders give to freight in our transportation system. More evidence of this, as Streetsblog recently reported: Caltrans routinely makes VMT-reduction exceptions to freight truck traffic induced by new highway capacity.

This change, unfortunately, was introduced at the last minute of the DIB-94 development process, giving the public little time to take notice before the final version of DIB-94 is approved. Removing interchanges from the purview of the DIB effectively creates an onerous process for local agencies working to improve biking and walking networks across state routes and makes Complete Streets much less likely.

Tell Caltrans what you think

Interchanges — overpasses and underpasses with ramp connections to the State or National Highway System — are the only means to cross the highways that bisect many neighborhoods in California.

Before DIB-94 is approved, we’re working behind the scenes to get it to a place that will align with Caltrans’ official complete streets policy (DP-37). Please contact Caltrans to remind them of the importance of applying Complete Street design standards to Catrans’ non-freeway rights-of-way, including interchanges.

Tell Governor Newsom: Decriminalize Fare Evasion

September 26, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

Fare evasion sounds criminal, but it often isn’t. It could be as simple as someone tapping their Clipper Card on the bus and not realizing it didn’t register. And enforcement often disproportionately affects riders of color.

As a recent Streetsblog piece pointed out, fare evasion has a greater penalty than speeding, which has tickets but no potential jail time. And, while our public transit systems need funding, punishing people for lacking the ability to pay or for simply making a mistake isn’t the way to do it.

It’s time to decriminalize fare evasion. Tell the governor to sign AB 819.

Riders of color disproportionately impacted by fare enforcement

As in other areas of policing, fare evasion penalties often fall most heavily on people of color.

For example, a review of citation data in Seattle found that 22% of citations were given to Black riders, even though they made up only 9% of ridership. Black riders were even more disproportionately likely to face criminal charges due to fare evasion. And a study of citations on the Long Beach public transit system found that Black riders were more likely to get tickets. In Northern California, BART is currently studying whether its fare evasion enforcement has a racial bias.

We would like public transit to be free so there would be no need for fare enforcement. Until then, AB 819 is an important step toward making transit safe and accessible for all Californians.

Daylighting to Save Lives: Ask Governor to Sign AB 413

September 26, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

Note: This post was updated on 9/25/23. It passed the legislature and now awaits the governor’s signature. Thank you to Streets for All for the graphics.

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

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

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

Daylighting is a widespread practice that California should adopt

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

Who Has the Right to Daylight?

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

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

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

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

Active Transportation Slate Goes to Governor

September 25, 2023/by Brian Smith

For Immediate Release: 9/25/23

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

CalBike-Supported Active Transportation Slate Advances to Governor’s Desk

SACRAMENTO – A slate of six critical active transit bills supported by CalBike is now on the governor’s desk. The governor has until October 14 to sign or veto bills. If he takes no action, the bill becomes law.

“Taken together, these laws will improve biking, walking, and transit. In an era of increasingly extreme climate disruption, our overarching goal must be to help Californians get to where they need to go using active transportation,” said Jared Sanchez, policy director, CalBike. “Plus, all these measures have the added benefit of reducing auto-related traffic deaths.”

AB 825 Bryan: Safe Passage for Bikes

The Safe Passage for Bikes Bill allows bicycle riding on a sidewalk adjacent to a street that does not include a Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway. The bill will take away a justification for traffic stops that may be racially biased and give people on bikes safer places to ride on dangerous streets with no bikeways. At the same time, it includes provisions to protect pedestrians and give them the right of way on sidewalks. AB 825 is a positive step toward decriminalization and bike rider safety, and we hope the governor signs it.

AB 413 Lee: Daylighting to Save Lives

Intersections are the most common sites of collisions involving people walking and biking. The daylighting bill prohibits stopping, standing, or parking a vehicle within 20 feet of any unmarked or marked crosswalk. This is a crucial measure that will improve safety by increasing visibility.

AB 645 Friedman: Automated Speed Enforcement

The Automated Speed Enforcement Bill establishes an automated speed safety pilot program in six jurisdictions: the cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco. Cities must give 30-day notice before the program starts, and tickets issued for the first 60 days will be warnings only, with no fines. Automated speed enforcement is a proven deterrent to speeding in other states, and it’s crucial to making our streets safer since speed is a major factor in collisions with serious injuries and fatalities. The pilot cities are all eager to participate, and we hope the bill passes so we can get data on the effectiveness of speed cameras on California streets.

AB 819 Bryan: Decriminalizing Transit Fare Evasion

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

AB 251 Ward: Deadly Oversized Cars

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

SB 695 Gonzalez: Caltrans Freeway Data

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

Passage of these measures will represent a crucial advance in equitable use of California streets and roads, providing increased safety for vulnerable road users and making it easier for Californians to choose low- and no-carbon transportation.

CalBike End-of-Session Legislative Recap 2023

September 21, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

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

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

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

The Active Transportation Slate: Bills that sit with the governor

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

AB 825 Bryan: Safe Passage for Bikes

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

Email the governor and ask him to sign AB 825 for bike safety.

AB 413 Lee: Daylighting to Save Lives

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

Tell Governor Newsom to sign AB 413 to daylight dangerous intersections.

AB 819 Bryan: Decriminalizing Transit Fare Evasion

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

Show your support for decriminalizing fare evasion – it just takes a minute.

AB 645 Friedman: Automated Speed Enforcement

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

AB 251 Ward: Deadly Oversized Cars

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

SB 695 Gonzalez: Caltrans Freeway Data

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

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

What is a two-year bill?

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

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

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

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

Bills that didn’t make it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 18, 2023/by Kendra Ramsey

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

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

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

The e-bike boom contributes to safety in numbers

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

More bike riders = more demand for safe bikeways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed Kills: Addressing the Real Road Hazard

September 18, 2023/by Kendra Ramsey

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

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

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

The tyranny of the 85th percentile rule

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

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

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

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

Invisible pedestrians

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

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

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

The car as a weapon

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

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

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

Built for speed: Dangerous street design contributes to fatalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slow Streets toolbox

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

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

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

Contribute to CalBike Complete Streets Research

September 11, 2023/by Andrew Wright

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Assembly to Protect Bike Riders from Pretextual Traffic Stops

September 11, 2023/by Jared Sanchez

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

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

Pretextual traffic stops do more harm than good

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

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

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

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

Tag Archive for: featured