Bicyclists: Help Pass AB1408

"bikerider7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Subject: Bicyclists: Statewide Call to Action on AB1408!

It is NOW or NEVER for AB1408, and if the California Highway Patrol has their way this bill will
be defeated and cyclists' right to the roadway will remain unclear. Please help us contact key
Senators in support of AB1408 before July 8th hearing!

I'm not a CA resident, but what part of the following is unclear? "21200. (a) Every person riding a
bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the
driver of a vehicle by this division,..."

The only two parts of the current law that I personally would have issue with are:

"21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any
person operating a bicycle upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving
in the same direction at that time shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may
move out of the lane under any of the following situations:"

and

"21212. (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle,.....unless that person is
wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards..."

What does AB1408 do? calbike.orgfaq1408.htmOpen ↗
1. Well....allows higher than shoulder height handlebars (good for recumbents)
2. B1408 changes braking requirement to reflect the predominance of hand brakes over foot brakes.
Section 21201 states that:
(a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will
enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement. [Doesn't sound
'foot brake oriented" to me. Maybe mandate minimum stopping distances? Can a BMXer stop as fast
as a tribike?]

AB1408 would write: "bicyclists "shall, if the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and vehicle to
safely travel side-by-side, ride as close to the right-hand edge of the roadway as necessary to
enable faster traffic to overtake and pass the bicycle."

Still quite unclear. The way this proposed rule reads...the overtaking vehicle would seem to be
able the determination as to whether "...the lane is wide enough for a bicycle and vehicle to
safely travel side-by-side..." For some drivers, 1 foot of clearance (or less!) is good enough for
"side by side". Better to put in a clause about "...shall give the bicyclist a minimum of 3'
clearance when passing."

The current language about "substandard width lane" is no less clear than the proposed wording.

AB1408 also would give special wording to the "door zone" Yes, that is *definately* a hazard area.
But to try to codify every possible exeption to "as far to the right" would introduce many. many
situations not covered. An otherwise at fault driver could say "That isn't covered in the new law",
when a cyclist does move farther left.

I remain confused. But then, CA politics has always confused me. Maybe you should concentrate on the
budget instead.

Pete again, I am not a CA resident, so ignore at your leisure

In article <[email hidden]>, bikerider7

Quoted message said:

Read the CHP's analysis of the June 4th version of the bill on our website at:
calbike.orgcpoa.docOpen ↗.

Are you sure it is from the California Highway Patrol, since it supposedly comes from the "CPOA
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE"?

It is not specifically stated who the CPOA is, but there is an organization called the California
Peace Officers' Association (cpoa.org) which has a Vehicle Theft / Traffic committee headed by an
officer of the California Highway Patrol.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

"bikerider7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This bill updates technologically obsolete provisions of the vehicle code pertaining to brakes,
reflectors and lights that bicyclists are required to use and clarifies language pertaining to
where bicyclists should ride on the roadway that has confused bicyclists and motorists since it
was enacted several decades ago. AB1408 would make clear that people riding bikes may ride outside
of the deadly door zone adjacent to parked cars, where doors opened carelessly by people in cars
injure and kill many bicyclists each year.

would riding the bicycle against car traffic reduce this?
(i.e. on the "wrong" side of the road)

In article said:

"bikerider7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This bill updates technologically obsolete provisions of the vehicle code pertaining to brakes,
reflectors and lights that bicyclists are required to use and clarifies language pertaining to
where bicyclists should ride on the roadway that has confused bicyclists and motorists since it
was enacted several decades ago. AB1408 would make clear that people riding bikes may ride
outside of the deadly door zone adjacent to parked cars, where doors opened carelessly by people
in cars injure and kill many bicyclists each year.

would riding the bicycle against car traffic reduce this?
(i.e. on the "wrong" side of the road)

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are only
likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is also
not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

"effi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"bikerider7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This bill updates technologically obsolete provisions of the vehicle code pertaining to brakes,
reflectors and lights that bicyclists are required to use and clarifies language pertaining to
where bicyclists should ride on the roadway that has confused bicyclists and motorists since it
was enacted several decades ago. AB1408 would make clear that people riding bikes may ride
outside of the deadly door zone adjacent to parked cars, where doors opened carelessly by people
in cars injure and kill many bicyclists each year.

would riding the bicycle against car traffic reduce this?
(i.e. on the "wrong" side of the road)

No, all that would do is have these inattentive drivers open the door in front of you...

bfd said:

No, all that would do is have these inattentive drivers open the door in front of you...

Since counterflow cyclists would be visible through the windshield, rather than requiring a
careful backward check, my guess is the dooring problem would be reduced if counterflow cycling
was the standard.

It's still a bad idea, however, due to an increased problem with traffic pulling out from side
streets and from left-turning traffic, neither of whom may be expecting counterflow traffic on roads
where cyclists are rare. Also, it substantially increases (approximately 2-3 times) the relative
speed of bikes and cars on the same side of the road, reducing reaction time.

Dan

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Quoted message said:

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are only
likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is also
not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

The key is to be predictable. One reasons standards exist is to increase predictability. About the
only way to be predictable riding counterflow, given the convention of pro-flow riding, is to pull
over to the side of the road and unclip (becoming a pedestrian) when any oncoming traffic is
encountered.

Sometimes I do this. But it's really slow.

BTW, if you want to see what's behind you, use a mirror.

Dan

F1 said:

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Quoted message said:

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are only
likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is also
not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

The key is to be predictable. One reasons standards exist is to increase predictability. About the
only way to be predictable riding counterflow, given the convention of pro-flow riding, is to pull
over to the side of the road and unclip (becoming a pedestrian) when any oncoming traffic is
encountered.

Sometimes I do this. But it's really slow.

BTW, if you want to see what's behind you, use a mirror.

Dan

F1 said:

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Quoted message said:

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are only
likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is also
not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

The key is to be predictable. One reasons standards exist is to increase predictability. About the
only way to be predictable riding counterflow, given the convention of pro-flow riding, is to pull
over to the side of the road and unclip (becoming a pedestrian) when any oncoming traffic is
encountered.

Sometimes I do this. But it's really slow.

BTW, if you want to see what's behind you, use a mirror.

Dan

F1 said:

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Quoted message said:

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are only
likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is also
not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

The key is to be predictable. One reasons standards exist is to increase predictability. About the
only way to be predictable riding counterflow, given the convention of pro-flow riding, is to pull
over to the side of the road and unclip (becoming a pedestrian) when any oncoming traffic is
encountered.

Sometimes I do this. But it's really slow.

BTW, if you want to see what's behind you, use a mirror.

Dan

F1 said:

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Quoted message said:

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are only
likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is also
not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
provided with this message.

Quoted message said:

2. B1408 changes braking requirement to reflect the predominance of hand brakes over foot brakes.
Section 21201 states that:
(a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will
enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement. [Doesn't
sound 'foot brake oriented" to me. Maybe mandate minimum stopping distances? Can a BMXer stop
as fast as a tribike?]

The reason why they call such legislation "foot brake oriented" is because it was written by people
familiar with "coaster brakes", the kind of rear brake that's activated by pedaling backwards. Bikes
that have these brakes usually have them solely. If they can't skid the rear tire, they're
inadequate.

But... only the rear brake of a bike is capable of skidding a tire on dry, clean, pavement. No
matter how good your front brake is, it will never do
it. Now, a working hand-operated front brake is sufficient to stop a bike by itself. Not only that,
it's superior to having only a rear brake. I have heard that racers in training use only a front
brake because of weight savings, and because it's superior to having only a rear brake. But
they'd be illegal under this law, because you can't have only a front brake, because a front
brake can't skid a tire on dry, clean, pavement. No matter the fact that they can stop
adequately.

Another example... if you had two hand-operated brakes, and the rear ones failed, you'd be breaking
the law. But if only the front ones failed, you'd be OK, even though you'd be better off in the
first situation than the second.

"Scott Marsden" <scottmarsden***@***canada.com> wrote

Quoted message said:

The reason why they call such legislation "foot brake oriented" is

because

Quoted message said:

it was written by people familiar with "coaster brakes", the kind of rear brake that's activated
by pedaling backwards. Bikes that have these brakes usually have them solely. If they can't skid
the rear tire, they're inadequate.

Written by people familiar with coaster brakes, because that was dominant when those laws were
first written.

Quoted message said:

But... only the rear brake of a bike is capable of skidding a tire on dry, clean, pavement. No
matter how good your front brake is, it will never do
it. Now, a working hand-operated front brake is sufficient to stop a bike

by

Quoted message said:

itself. Not only that, it's superior to having only a rear brake. I have heard that racers in
training use only a front brake because of weight savings, and because it's superior to having
only a rear brake. But they'd be illegal under this law, because you can't have only a front
brake, because a front brake can't skid a tire on dry, clean, pavement. No matter the fact that
they can stop adequately.

Another example... if you had two hand-operated brakes, and the rear ones failed, you'd be
breaking the law. But if only the front ones failed,

you'd

Quoted message said:

be OK, even though you'd be better off in the first situation than the second.

Well, for one, I'd seriously reconsider the concept of "predominance of hand brakes over foot
brakes". Kids BMXers are VERY numerous.

how about: "Bicycles must have a mechanism for stopping the bicycle quickly" (insert a stick into
the spokes)

Pete

F1,

Such people have worse fortune than the typical cyclist. Collisions from the rear are relatively
less common than others.

Of course, any individual's past history of collisions from the rear probably has little or no
influence on subsequent encounters.

I find it more than a little ironic that so many cyclists ride unsafely and illegally on the left
while so many joggers run illegally and unsafely on the right.

Randall Schulz

F1 said:

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Quoted message said:

Riding on the wrong side of the road is much more dangerous in just about every other way. And it
probably won't help in the door-opening case -- those who do look before opening the door are
only likely to look back, where traffic (bicycle or otherwise) is likely to be coming from. It is
also not legal to ride on the wrong side of the road.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee

The key is to be predictable. One reasons standards exist is to increase predictability. About the
only way to be predictable riding counterflow, given the convention of pro-flow riding, is to pull
over to the side of the road and unclip (becoming a pedestrian) when any oncoming traffic is
encountered.

Sometimes I do this. But it's really slow.

BTW, if you want to see what's behind you, use a mirror.

For runners, it seems, convention is less clear. 21956(a) has enough exceptions that there are still
common circumstances where walking on the right would be legal, and in any case the code specifies
"walking" (is running walking?). Fast runners are faster than slow cyclists. If a runner can assume
vehicle-like behavior, perhaps the right is even better place to be. The key is to behave
vehicularly -- no sudden turns, etc. Be predictable.

Dan

P.S. ref: leginfo.ca.govwaisgateOpen ↗

Randall R Schulz said:

F1,

Such people have worse fortune than the typical cyclist. Collisions from the rear are relatively
less common than others.

Of course, any individual's past history of collisions from the rear probably has little or no
influence on subsequent encounters.

I find it more than a little ironic that so many cyclists ride unsafely and illegally on the left
while so many joggers run illegally and unsafely on the right.

Randall Schulz

F1 said:

That is, unless you've been hit from behind...

Scott Marsden said:

Quoted message said:

2. B1408 changes braking requirement to reflect the predominance of hand brakes over foot
brakes. Section 21201 states that:
(a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will
enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement. [Doesn't
sound 'foot brake oriented" to me. Maybe mandate minimum stopping distances? Can a BMXer
stop as fast as a tribike?]

The reason why they call such legislation "foot brake oriented" is because it was written by
people familiar with "coaster brakes", the kind of rear brake that's activated by pedaling
backwards. Bikes that have these brakes usually have them solely. If they can't skid the rear
tire, they're inadequate.

But... only the rear brake of a bike is capable of skidding a tire on dry, clean, pavement. No
matter how good your front brake is, it will never do
it. Now, a working hand-operated front brake is sufficient to stop a bike by itself. Not only
that, it's superior to having only a rear brake. I have heard that racers in training use only
a front brake because of weight savings, and because it's superior to having only a rear
brake. But they'd be illegal under this law, because you can't have only a front brake,
because a front brake can't skid a tire on dry, clean, pavement. No matter the fact that they
can stop adequately.

Another example... if you had two hand-operated brakes, and the rear ones failed, you'd be
breaking the law. But if only the front ones failed, you'd be OK, even though you'd be better off
in the first situation than the second.

My front brakes can easily make my front wheel skid on dry pavement. Vee brakes, 2 years old. 700c x
35 tires. No problem.

What are you using? Bernie

Skidding is a failure mode. Why require brakes to fail? For example, you'd be "rewarding" a bike
with poor traction. AB1408 is much more direct. Brakes must stop the bike. This is what they're
supposed to do.

Bernie said:

My front brakes can easily make my front wheel skid on dry pavement. Vee brakes, 2 years old. 700c
x 35 tires. No problem.

What are you using? Bernie

Daniel Connelly said:

Skidding is a failure mode. Why require brakes to fail? For example, you'd be "rewarding" a bike
with poor traction. AB1408 is much more direct. Brakes must stop the bike. This is what they're
supposed to do.

Bernie said:

My front brakes can easily make my front wheel skid on dry pavement. Vee brakes, 2 years old.
700c x 35 tires. No problem.

What are you using? Bernie

You'll get no argument from me. I CAN skid, but I don't skid. It's a loss of control, unless you're
a kid hot dogging with a coaster brake. Bernie

Bernie said:

You'll get no argument from me. I CAN skid, but I don't skid. It's a loss of control, unless
you're a kid hot dogging with a coaster brake. Bernie

Exactly. Anti-lock brakes are arguably ILLEGAL on bicycles.

Some notes from someone who was at the Senate Transportation Committee hearing, posted to the
Silicon Valley BC mailing list -- depressing, as it appears this wonderful bill, passed unanomously
by the Assembly, will be diluted to virtually nothing by legislators and lobbyists who understand
neither current code nor the content of the proposed legislation.

Dan

=====================================

* AB1408 was not voted on (but this was good, because we definitely did not have the votes yesterday
afternoon to make it out of committee).

* ANOTHER Rules Waiver has been filed (highly unusual). While Chair Murray was initially quite
hostile towards the bill and seemed intent on killing it (for fear it would give cyclists the
right to "control the roadway"😉, by the end of the hearing he had come to the position that the
bill deserves a shot, if language is amended to address his concerns. Torlakson promised the
compromise would not be a "middle of the road" solution, pun intended. Senator Scott from Pasadena
really turned the hearing around when he gave a personal testimony about his experience being
doored, and also by stating that he liked Chris Morfas' comments.

* At the start of yesterday's hearing, the CHP rep said they would oppose the bill UNLESS it only
dealt with CVC code related to bike equipment. By the end of the hearing, CHP had softened their
position and stated that they are willing to negotiate more on the door zone issue.

* A Caltrans representative (yes Caltrans!!) testified yesterday about the dangers of the door zone.
It was great! Caltrans of course does not have an official position on the bill, but they cited
information from their website about the dangers of the door zone, the dangers of weaving in and
out between parked cars, etc. The City of Los Angeles and Tim Bustos, Davis Bicycle Coordinator
also gave testimony in support of the bill.

* More later from Chris Morfas about what the new Rules Waiver means. From my understanding, it will
likely NOT mean another hearing (yesterday's was the last of this session), but will mean that the
bill is amended again and then presented to each Senator out of committee for their vote.

* Many statements made by the Senators were quite surreal, and revealed an incredible lack of
ignorance about cyclists' current rights under current vehicle code (and a lack of ignorance about
our bill). The CHP and a San Bernandino County Sherriff who testified also made a few surprisingly
weak arguments that made it hard for us supporters to keep a straight face. Amazing that this is
how laws are made. More on this later (I took quite detailed notes).

* There were nearly 20 of us there to support the bill (filling more than 1/2 the chairs in the
hearing room). We appeared to be the only group of citizens there for the transportation hearing.
We heard several other transportation- related bills before our bill (none of much interest), and
also got to attend a special floor session on the budget to watch the Republicans and Democrats
take swipes at one another while waiting for our hearing which was postponed to 3pm in the
afternoon.

well that's enough for this "short brief!"