Bicyclists: Help Pass AB1408

[bikerider7]

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!

Assembly Bill 1408 (Wolk), sponsored by the California Bicycle Coalition,
would clarify bicyclists' rights and responsibilities and, in the future,
serve as a solid foundation for educational campaigns aimed at both
motorists and bicyclists.

We need your help TODAY to ensure the Senate Transportation Committee
hears from hundreds of cyclists statewide before the hearing on AB1408
onTuesday July 8th.

*Letters to Transportation Committee members are the most important way
you can help our effort. If your Senator is not a committee member (see
list below), please send a letter to the Senate Transportation Committee
Chair as well as to your Senator.

*Statewide Call-In Day for AB1408: Monday July 7th

*Attend the July 8th hearing in Sacramento; to participate contact Sarah
Syed at:

Sample letters, contact info for Senators, FAQ on AB1408, and more is
available at: http://www.calbike.org/bikebill.htm and is also included
below.

A huge THANK YOU to those who have already helped!

Senate Transportation Committee Members:
Senator Kevin Murray (Chair)
Senator Tom McClintock (Vice-Chair)
Senator Roy Ashburn
Senator James Brulte
Senator Liz Figueroa
Senator Dean Florez
Senator Betty Karnette
Senator Bill Morrow
Senator Don Perata
Senator Jack Scott
Senator Jack Scott
Senator Nell Soto
Senator Jackie Speier
Senator Tom Torlakson

Senator contact info is available online at (need Senator name for
look-up): http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp

If you don't know the name of your Senator, don't feel bad- most people
don't, you can find that out at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

Here's a sample letter (also available on our website at:
http://www.calbike.org/bikebill.htm) for you to cut and paste and send
ASAP. Letters sent via snail mail and fax are much more effective than
emails. Please insert personal details to make your letter more
convincing.

DATE

The Honorable FIRST NAME LAST NAME
California State Senate
California State Senate
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB1408(Wolk) SUPPORT

Dear Senator LAST NAME:

Please vote yes when AB1408 is heard by the Senate Transportation
Committee on July 8. As noted by the Legislative Counsel, the bill makes
"technical, nonsubstantive changes in existing law."

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. AB1408 will also add a definition of the term "door
zone" to the vehicle code to reduce misinterpretation.

AB1408 will help motorists, bicyclists and law enforcement personnel
better understand and apply state law, thus improving roadway safety for
all users.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

**You can see the current version of AB1408 here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1408_bill_20030624_amende
d_sen.html

Once again, the CHP is hostile to the interests of cyclists.
The CHP has refused to even acknowledge that the current
vehicle code language needs any refinement and is so far staunchly
opposing the bill. The CHP's written and verbal comments on the
legislation are quite alarming. For example, the CHP has recommended that
bicyclists ride in the dangerous door zone adjacent to parked cars;
bicyclists know they need to leave some space in between themselves and
parked cars in order to avoid collisions caused when people inside cars
open doors without looking.

Read the CHP's analysis of the June 4th version of the bill on our
website at: http://www.calbike.org/cpoa.doc.

[effi]

"bikerider7" > wrote in message
om...
> 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)

[bfd]

"effi" > wrote in message >...
> "bikerider7" > wrote in message
> om...
> > 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...

[Daniel Connelly]

bfd wrote:
>
> 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

[F1]

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

> 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.
>

[Randall R Schulz]

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

[Daniel Connelly]

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:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=1205237115+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve


Randall R Schulz wrote:
> 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 wrote:
>
>> That is, unless you've been hit from behind...
>>

[Bernie]

Scott Marsden wrote:

> > 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

[Daniel Connelly]

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 wrote:
> 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
>

[Bernie]

Daniel Connelly wrote:

> 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 wrote:
> > 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

[Daniel Connelly]

Bernie wrote:
>
> 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!"