Category: california

San Diego County to spend $200M on bicycle facilities

The San Diego Association of Governments, the regional planning organization for San Diego County, recently approved a $200 million spending plan for bicycle facilities. The Early Action Program (EAP) provides funding to implement San Diego County’s Regional Bicycle Network High Priority Projects within 10 years as outlined in the San Diego Regional Bike Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan.

How does that $200 million over a decade for bike spending compare to other regions of California?

(more…)

California state park bans bikes & pedestrians from paved road

The Superintendent of Torrey Pines State Reserve in San Diego, California issued a press release this morning announcing the immediate closure of the park road to pedestrians and downhill cyclists in the interests of visitor safety. Motor vehicle access via the park entrance road remains unhindered.

torrey-pines

(more…)

California Governor signs 3 foot passing bill (for real this time)

New and improved news, this time with actual FACT CHECKING!


Santa Cruz Wildcat race

Legislative update from the office of California Governor Jerry Brown:

9-23-2013 SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills:

        …

  • AB 1371 by Assemblymember Steven C. Bradford (D-Gardena) – Vehicles: bicycles: passing distance

Read the press release issued earlier today here.

AB 1371 is Steven Bradford’s “Three Feet for Safety Act” that mandates (sorta kinda) a minimum three feet of clearance when a motor vehicle passes a cyclist. And because people keep asking about this, the law specifies “3 feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part of the bicycle or its operator.

“I sincerely thank the Governor for signing this commonsense measure to protect cyclists on our roads,” Bradford said. “When cars and bikes collide, it often turns to tragedy. This bill is a great reminder that we all have to work together to keep our roads safe for all users.”

Bradford’s original bill was a work of genius; subsequent amendments in committee of both chambers of the California legislature weakens the law, mostly to incorporate compromises that Brown deemed essential to guarantee his signature.

The most important compromise is the so-called “Part D exception,” which says:

If the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to [pass more than three feet away from the cyclist] due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.

Still, cyclist and cycling advocate organizations statewide supported AB 1371 as a symbolic measure that recognizes the importance of taking increased care while driving around cyclists.

The law will take effect September 16, 2014. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 22 states currently have a minimum passing distance law on the books.

California: Yet another bicycle legislation update 2013

The California legislature wrapped up the first year of their two year session last Friday. Damien Newton in Los Angeles tracked a few bills that may be of interest to you. I have a couple more here.

First of all, a correction: Damien mistakenly reports that AB 417 (CEQA exemptions for bike plans) died in Senate committee. In reality, AB 417 passed the Senate last Wednesday (on a consent calendar vote, no less). The Assembly concurred Senate amendments into the bill just before the session end last Friday. AB 417 would exempt bike plans from certain California Environmental Quality Act requirements. It currently awaits the Governor’s signature.

Three feet for safety: The other big bill we’re all waiting with bated breath for is AB 1371, California’s third try at a three feet passing law. Governor Brown has until September 21 to either sign or veto this bill.

Expanded membership in transportation commission: AB 1290, which expands membership in the policy-setting California Transportation Commission, passed last Thursday.

I-710 project: SB 811 passed last Thursday. This is the bill to require community input and environmental reviews for the I-710 project in Los Angeles.

Like AB 1371, SB 811 and AB 1290 await action from the Governor’s office. He has a huge pile of other legislation to peruse so it might be a while.

That “Blame the Victim” resolution by DeSaulnier and Evans, SR 17, thankfully died in the Senate rules committee. This Senate Resolution comes from the same playbook used by school principal Camillo Turriciano of New York City’s I.S. 73 after five of her students were seriously injured when an out of control maniac charged up onto the sidewalk with her S.U.V.

Damien covers some other legislation that may be of interest. Like him, I’ve also followed AB 60 (drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, last I’ve heard Governor will veto); AB 184 (statute of limitations for hit and run drivers); SB 731/743 (wider CEQA amendments outside of just bike projects).

I’ve also covered other 2013 bicycle legislation here that either passed earlier on the year or died in committee or on the floor of their respective chamber.

If you’d like to send a word of support or opposition to one of these bills, shoot a note to the Governor here.

California politics: On the fence about 3 feet for safety?

I’ve been on the fence about California’s “3 Feet for Safety” act. Steven Bradford’s AB 1371 was brilliantly written. Subsequent amendments in committee in both chambers of the state legislator watered the bill down considerably, and many cyclist advocates in the Golden State have expressed reservations about the law as written.

Section (d) of the amended act provides a serious exception. Some have argued that we should ask Governor Jerry Brown to veto this act so we can try for a better law after he is either voted out of office in 2014 or termed out in 2018.

Serge Issakov of San Diego, argues that even a symbolic bill such as AB 1371 is worth supporting, and will provide a solid basis for educational campaigns. He writes:

It seems to take most people considerable time to work through bias, even after they’re aware of it. As far as I can tell, the CHP is yet to recognize their anti-cyclist bias. At this point the best we can probably do is nudge them, and others, in the right direction. This bill does that.

While this is arguably not a “real” 3 foot bill, because of the 20750.1(d) “unable to comply” exception, so what? Even a “real” 3-foot bill is mostly symbolic. No one is out there with a measuring stick. Few will look at the details of 21750.1. This language establishes sufficient basis to support a “give three feet to pass” campaign (for what that’s worth, if anything) as much as a “real” 3 foot bill would. A motorist side-swiping a bicyclist can claim the bicyclist swerved just as easily under existing law, this proposed law, or a “real” 3 foot law. If police want to enforce laws against unsafe passing of bicyclists, as they recently did in New Orleans (I believe it was N.O.), they can do so just easily with this law as with a “real” 3 foot law. I don’t see what difference it makes if the 3-foot law is “real” or not, in any context.

Much more importantly, what this language does do is establish in the law for the first time that relative speed difference, as well as passing distance, is an important factor in passing cyclists. If the governor passes this bill, we will be able to legally justify using the full lane, even in wide lanes, even on roads with bike lanes, until motorists behind slow down “to a speed that is reasonable and prudent”, and wait until passing “would not endanger the safety of the ” cyclist, before we temporarily move aside. And since that’s exactly how I roll, I, for one, look forward to that language being codified.

Baby steps. We’re getting there, and this law will help.

Jerry Brown vetoed the previous two attempts at a three foot law. This bill addresses the concerns Governor Brown noted, so perhaps he’ll sign this one. The bill was delivered to the Governor’s office Monday afternoon; he has 12 days to either sign or veto AB 1371. Please write to the Governor today to encourage him to sign AB 1371, the California 3 Feet for Safety Act.

California 3 foot law passes final legislative hurdle

The folks at CABO tell me that the California Assembly voted this morning to approve the amendments to AB 1371, representative Steven Bradford’s “Three Feet for Safety” bill that mandates (sort of) a minimum 3 feet of clearance when a motor vehicle passes a bicycle. 51 voted in favor of the amended bill, while 23 representatives voted “no.”

The Assembly initially passed AB 1371 last May. The Senate passed this bill on Monday, August 26. Because the Senate version included amendments, the bill returned to the Assembly for that chamber’s approval of the Senate changes.

The bill as passed includes a “get out of jail free” card that essentially neuters to force of this act. It states that a driver can pass even if three feet isn’t available.

Subdivision (d): If the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to comply with subdivision (c), due to traffic or roadway conditions, the driver shall slow to a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and may pass only when doing so would not endanger the safety of the operator of the bicycle, taking into account the size and speed of the motor vehicle and bicycle, traffic conditions, weather, visibility, and surface and width of the highway.

What are you thinking right now? Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.

Still, mainstream media coverage on this bill hasn’t mentioned this shortcoming, so maybe a few drivers will just remember the part about “three feet” and drive accordingly.

Okay, I’ll quit with the comedy routine now. Anybody who’s ticketed for violating this law can fight it and easily win with this subdivision (d) clause.

After the Labor Day holiday, AB 1371 moves on to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, who has vetoed both previous attempts at similar 3 feet passing laws.

This subdivision (d) stinks, and I’m having a hard time getting too enthusiastic about it. Once this bill becomes law, any future chance to rectify it may prove difficult, so maybe we should wait until Brown terms out before trying again.

What do you think? Is the perfect the enemy of the good in this case?