Bicyclists: Help Pass AB1408

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bikerider7, Jun 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bikerider7

    Bikerider7 Guest

    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: [email protected]

    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.
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "bikerider7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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? http://www.calbike.org/faq1408.htm
    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
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, bikerider7
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Read the CHP's analysis of the June 4th version of the bill on our website at:
    >http://www.calbike.org/cpoa.doc.

    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.
     
  4. Effi

    Effi Guest

    "bikerider7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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)
     
  5. In article <[email protected]>, effi <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"bikerider7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> 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.
     
  6. Bfd

    Bfd Guest

    "effi" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "bikerider7" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > 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...
     
  7. 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
     
  8. F1

    F1 Guest

    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.
     
  9. 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 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 Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
    >>provided with this message.
    >>
    >
     
  10. 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 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 Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
    >>provided with this message.
    >>
    >
     
  11. 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 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 Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
    >>provided with this message.
    >>
    >
     
  12. 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 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 Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is
    >>provided with this message.
    >>
    >
     
  13. > 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.
     
  14. Pete

    Pete Guest

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

    >
    > 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.

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

    >
    > 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.

    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
     
  15. 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
     
  16. 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...
     
  17. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    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
     
  18. 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
     
  19. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    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
     
  20. 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!"
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...