AB 819 would have permitted local agencies to follow “innovative” bikeway design guidelines from sources other than the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as currently mandated by law. The reasoning for our opposition is in the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis, quoted from our letter:

We are always open to innovative ideas, but a number of facility innovations that initially seem attractive also appear to present significant safety issues. The available research on these facilities is not always reliable, despite being cited in a guide produced by a private organization. Legitimizing these designs, in effect, by statute, rather than by technical review, could expose bicyclists to potentially dangerous facilities.

We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design, and we would enthusiastically support an alternative approach that would provide an efficient process for experimenting with new designs. A Caltrans sanctioned experimental procedure would relieve local agencies of liability for nonstandard designs; it would enable experimentation with innovative and improved designs in a controlled and rigorous manner that would be consistent across jurisdictions; and it would provide reliable information for revision of the Highway Design Manual.

As indicated in the bill analysis, the Assembly Transportation Committee recommended that AB819 be amended to specifically require procedures allowing local agencies to request Caltrans to consider innovative and modified bikeway project designs, and the author and sponsor of the bill have agreed to these amendments. This addresses our concerns above, and so CABO is now in support of AB819.

SUBJECT: CABO opposition to AB 819 unless amended

Dear Assemblymember Wieckowski:

CABO is the association of California’s bicycle organizations. In our meeting last week with Ed Imai of the Assembly Transportation Committee, Dave Snyder of the California Bicycle Coalition, and Heather Falkenthal from your staff, we heard proposals that AB 819 permit local agencies to follow “innovative” bikeway design guidelines from sources other than the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as currently mandated by law.

We are always open to innovative ideas, but a number of facility innovations that initially seem attractive also appear to present significant safety issues. The available research on these facilities is not always reliable, despite being cited in a guide produced by a private organization. Legitimizing these designs, in effect, by statute, rather than by technical review, could expose bicyclists to potentially dangerous facilities.

We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design, and we would enthusiastically support an alternative approach that would provide an efficient process for experimenting with new designs. A Caltrans sanctioned experimental procedure would relieve local agencies of liability for nonstandard designs; it would enable experimentation with innovative and improved designs in a controlled and rigorous manner that would be consistent across jurisdictions; and it would provide reliable information for revision of the Highway Design Manual.

I regret that we must oppose AB 819 at this time, but we would be happy to sponsor a bill that created an experimental process by amending two sections of the Streets and Highways Code as follows, underlined and italicized:

890.6. The department, in cooperation with county and city governments, shall establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. The criteria shall include, but not be limited to, the design speed of the facility, minimum widths and clearances, grade, radius of curvature, pavement surface, actuation of automatic traffic control devices, drainage, and general safety. The criteria shall be updated biennially, or more often, as needed. The criteria shall include a procedure for agencies to request approval to use nonstandard planning, design, and construction features for purposes of research, experimentation, and verification.

890.8. The department shall establish uniform specifications and symbols for signs, markers, and traffic control devices to designate bikeways, regulate traffic, improve safety and convenience for bicyclists, and alert pedestrians and motorists of the presence of bicyclists on bikeways and on roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. The criteria shall include a procedure for agencies to request approval to use nonstandard signs, markers, and traffic control devices for purposes of research, experimentation, and verification.

The procedure to be instituted might resemble the existing procedure for experimental traffic control devices, which may be viewed in Section 1A.10 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/index.htm, or the flowchart at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/newtech/others/example-experimentprocess.pdf. This level of technical detail, however, would probably not be appropriate for inclusion in the bill.

We request that you change AB 819 to encourage prudent experimentation, review and adoption of bikeway design innovations.

Sincerely,
Jim Baross
CABO President

I am writing on behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations to ask that you sign Senator Lowenthal’s Senate Bill 910 into law. With the enactment of SB 910 and with wider public recognition of what is safe and appropriate motor vehicle driver’s behavior in the presence of bicyclists, everyone can benefit.

We expect that this clearer statement of appropriate passing distances by motorists of bicyclists, replacing the subjective guidance in existing law, will better inform people about unsafe passing and encourage more and safer bicycling – an appropriate goal toward providing a cleaner environment, safer traffic operations, and healthier Californians.

We consider the 3′ passing bill, SB 910, as a good and appropriate step toward wider recognition and hopefully, acceptance that bicyclists have, per California Vehicle Code 21200, the same rights and same responsibilities for operation in traffic as drivers of motor vehicles.

Our efforts toward this recognition has also been helped recently by Senator Kehoe’s significant support of a Statewide Bicycling Task Force; by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Commissioner Joe Farrow for his leadership and Capitan Avery Browne’s involvement in reviewing our bicyclist training program materials; by Assemblymember Toni Atkins AB 345 encouraging the Department of Transportation to include representatives of alternative transportation – walking, bicycling and transit – as members of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee; and by Senior Law Enforcement Consultant Karen
Lozito and the Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commissions’ agreement to expand POST training for traffic enforcement officers regarding lawful bicycling as of July 2011.

Through our meetings with CHP trainers, we have confirmed that the bicycling advocates across the State who are using the League of American Bicyclist’s bicycling education programs are applying the same interpretation and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists as the CHP trainers. We are hoping that the newly expanded training through POST will help make accurate
information more readily available, accepted, and used by all traffic enforcement personnel in California – traffic officers, judges, and someday, juries.

We will be making further efforts to encourage more and safer bicycling through our education and advocacy efforts; especially toward clarification of a Californian’s lawful rights, responsibilities, and best practices for bicycling on public roadways. Specifically we will be addressing California Vehicle Code 21202 – often summarized and widely misunderstood as requiring bicycling to occur only “out of
the way” on the margins of public roadways, rather than properly sharing the right of way.
We are ready and eager to address these and other issues when the legislature returns in 2012.
Thanks in advance for your support, signing, and enactment of SB 910 toward a safer travel environment in California.
Sincerely,
Jim Baross, CABO President
Cc: Commissioner Joe Farrow
Senator Alan Lowenthal
Senator Christine Kehoe
Assemblymember Toni Atkins
CABO Board
Alan Wachtel, California Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair
Penny Gray, Caltrans Bicycle Program Manager
James Lombardo Sr, CABO Lobbyist

Although we listed several points in a previous blog post, a key concern was the exemption from the three-foot requirement when the motorist-cyclist speed differential is 15 mph or less. While this was intended to facilitate overtaking in slow or stopped traffic, this could have unintended consequences -such as giving a legal defense for a 55 mph motorist who passes within inches of a 40 mph cyclist traveling downhill.

CABO representatives suggested the following wording to address the 15 mph differential and other concerns:

21750.1 (a) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall pass in compliance with the provisions of this article applicable to overtaking and passing a vehicle, and shall do so at a safe distance that does not interfere with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle, having due regard for the size and speed of the motor vehicle and the bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, and the surface and width of the highway.

(b) In no event shall the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a highway pass at a distance of less than three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator, except that the driver may pass the overtaken bicycle with due care at a distance of less than three feet at a speed not greater than 10 miles per hour, if in compliance with subdivision (a).

CABO also provided comments other sections of SB910, including the wording allowing motorists to cross a double yellow line to pass bicyclists (a concept which we support, but bringing the wording more in line with that of other states) and the fines for violations of CVC 21750.1.

Now that SB910 has passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly, we hope it can be amended there to address our concerns.

(June 24 update: CABO Now SUPPORTS 3-Foot Passing Bill SB910)

1. The law already provides that motorists must pass bicyclists at a safe distance without interfering with their safe operation.

2. We don’t believe that three feet is measurable or enforceable in practice.

3. Emphasizing three feet as the passing distance may encourage some drivers to pass too closely when greater clearance is needed.

4. A 15-mph speed differential also can’t be measured or enforced, and is not always appropriate.

5. By amending CVC 21750 to remove references to bicycles and replacing it with CVC 21750.1, which always requires passing on the left, the bill apparently makes it unlawful to pass a bicyclist on the right, even if the bicyclist is turning left.

6. The language of proposed CVC 21750.1 is ambiguous:

“The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance, at a minimum clearance of three feet or at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle, without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle.”

“At a safe distance,” “at a minimum clearance of three feet,” or “at a speed not exceeding 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of the bicycle” can be read as a series of three items any one of which is sufficient. It’s also unclear whether “without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken bicycle” modifies all of these, or only the last.

7. We support the concept of permitting motorists to cross double yellow lines to pass bicyclists. However, “substandard width lane” is undefined, and the condition given, when “it is safe to do so,” is too vague and allows too much latitude for driver misjudgment.

(June 24 update: CABO Now SUPPORTS 3-Foot Passing Bill SB910)

At the risk of becoming a pariah among local cycling advocates, I have to respectfully disagree with efforts to support the enactment of the “Idaho law” in California. And let me preface my comments by explaining that I am a daily cyclist (for over 40 years) who always stops at stop signs and always waits for the green light. However, I do admit that at stop signs I will often slow VERY perceptibly, almost to a full stop, before entering the intersection. While I know this violates the letter of the law, I also know that almost no motorists come to complete stops at stop signs unless there is cross traffic to wait for. I think this is acceptable, and apparently so does law enforcement, because virtually all of us who drive do the same – often in full view of traffic officers – and are never stopped for it. Cyclists need not be held to a higher standard than motorists in this situation. It’s akin to driving 70 mph when the posted limit is 65 mph. That minor “indiscretion” is clearly acceptable to virtually every police officer, judge and jury. Same goes with the stop sign situation. I know that some cyclists have been stopped and cited by police for not putting a foot down to the pavement at a stop sign, but those rare instances are the actions of abusive or ignorant officers and I don’t believe they are such common occurrences to warrant a “solution” like the Idaho law.

The main reasons that such a law is often advocated by some cyclists are these: (1) it would decriminalize existing, common behavior among many cyclists, (2) cyclists would save energy by not having to stop and start at every stop sign, and (3) cyclists would save time by not having to wait for the green light at every encounter with a red light. The latter two reasons are tempting to some because the energy saved is our own – fatigue is reduced or at least delayed; and saving time when engaging in a travel mode that is not particularly fast as compared with motorized transportation may be enticing.

The extent that stopping is a burden to cyclists is up to the individual. I’ve never considered it to be a problem. If I wasn’t fit enough to start and stop multiple times when riding, perhaps I shouldn’t be on a pedal-bike. And if the delay of waiting for a green light slows me down too much, maybe I should consider a faster mode. Most of us don’t choose cycling because it’s the quickest way from point A to B.

All that being said, I do think a good argument can be made for replacing many stop signs with yield signs signalized intersections with roundabouts.

It has also been argued by some that the Idaho law would create more predictable cyclist behavior. I think that’s illogical. At present when I observe a cyclist approaching a stop sign, I may be unsure what he is going to do. How would that be any different under the new law? I still wouldn’t know what he’d do. In fact, I’d be less sure. I guess I could just predict that whatever he did, he’d be within the law (assuming he really treated a stop sign as a yield sign and behaved accordingly – remember, there are legal and illegal ways to treat a yield sign).

And, where there is a reasonable level of traffic enforcement for all modes (e.g. when one of the Davis bicycle officers is patrolling downtown Davis), it’s pretty easy to predict behavior by most cyclists.

Here’s a scenario to consider: a cyclist approaches a red light (under the Idaho law). She stops, looks both ways, and decides to cross or turn left on the red light. Unbeknownst to her, motor traffic on her left or across the intersection has just gotten a green left turn arrow. Conflict (or worse) occurs. She wasn’t aware of that because many such signals are not visible to the cross traffic because there’s no reason for them to be when all traffic is supposed to obey them according to the same black and white rules.  I suppose you could argue that a prudent cyclist would not cross on the red light under the circumstance where there was cross traffic waiting to turn left across her path. But how many of us would make that determination under those circumstances?

My observation of the “judgment” used by many cyclists when choosing to ignore stop signs or red lights is that they often make very poor and dangerous decisions. Making such behavior “legal” won’t reduce the danger to them or others.

Another point to consider: the maturity and traffic experience to make the right decision to treat a stop as a yield or a red light as a stop sign safely is certainly within the grasp of many of us. However, as noted above, not every adult has such maturity, experience or good judgment. Most importantly – ANYONE, no matter what age and what level of experience, can ride a bike on public streets. Do you think that the typical 8-year old can make such decisions safely? I can imagine many kids emulating the behavior of adult cyclists under such a law and following careless cyclists into intersections under conditions in which the child will be in significantly more danger than the adult (visibility, speed, skill to avoid a collision, etc.). A uniform, unambiguous set of laws that apply to all road users is easier for a child to understand.

Sometimes the argument is made that cyclists should get these advantages because they’re doing the “right thing” environmentally and such. One could also argue that motorists could save a lot of fuel, money and reduce emissions if they could do the same. The “bike advocate” counters that allowing motorists to behave in this manner is too dangerous because of the potentially significant injuries, even fatalities, which might ensue.

So, if cyclists are allowed to engage in what may be riskier behavior (treating stops as yields, red lights as stop signs), the worst case scenario is that a few more cyclists may get hurt, but such incidents are only their own fault. How ridiculous is that? Imagine the reaction of the motorist who kills a cyclist, especially a child, who uses poor judgment under this law? And consider the costs to society of any serious injury. Furthermore, in a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, the pedestrian may be more likely to suffer serious injury. Will cyclists properly yield to pedestrians when “running” red lights and stop signs?

In conclusion, I think cycling advocates should be very cautious about pursuing such a change in the California Vehicle Code. It runs counter to the principles of vehicular cycling and also violates one of the primary elements of traffic safety: predictability. It would be better if cyclists used their energy and resources to advocate for more education for cyclists and motorists, pushed for more rational policies about the installation of stop signs and traffic signals when yield signs and roundabouts may be the safer alternatives, and encouraged more enforcement by police officers better informed about traffic law as it pertains to cyclists. Is it REALLY all that onerous to stop at stop signs and red lights?