New CA bike law on passing
 

This is one of the benefits of eBikes becoming popular. People who would never ride a "real" bike are buying eBikes; they see cyclist safety as something that applies to them now. More of us is good for us.

I think they just need to wear a helmet but I understand that just me.

I think everyone should ride with a helmet (not mandated though) I ride my e-bike with a helmet along with all my other bikes. Most of the folks I am selling e-bikes too wear helmets and the few that don't well you can't do much for them.

While riding last summer my friends and I decided to count how many e-bikes we encountered and the percentage of those riders wearing helmets. 50%

Concerning the section about the Training and Safety program, how will that be administered to riders? Will it be mandatory like a motorcycle class?

I mentioned this one to my wife and she said "like they'll enforce that anyway", and she's right. The "increased protections" will only be imaginary unless and until cops start citing drivers for violating it.

Exactly. There are plenty of laws on the books that should, theoretically, protect bike riders. Enforcement is a whole other matter.
As for helmets, I suspect the increase in e-bikes will lead to an increase in head trauma accidents, perhaps a higher increase than would be the case in just an increase in regular bikes. People with less bike handling skills will be more tempted to “ ride “ with more accidents.

I read that to say they're going to create them, not mandate them. Unless you require licensing, you couldn't really require such a course. Not to mention that you can create and offer such a course for relatively low cost. But the cost of having it be mandatory would be a great deal more.

​​​​​​​huh?

Just thinking about what this would mean for a group ride with a rotating paceline on a multi-lane road...

The enforcement comes through the courts. Should a rider be hit by a vehicle or file a charge of harassment against a driver, with this law, the burden will be on the driver to show that they moved into the adjacent lane. It makes it much easier to convict the driver, and the cyclist to win a civil suit.

Bob Mionske had some columns on the subject over at VeloNews.

Agree. Same would apply to other cyclists - if a close pass causes a crash.

Again, I wonder what this means for group rides. If there's a crash in a group ride, could someone sue another rider for failing to "change lanes" to pass them? I suppose there's a whole host of group-ride lawsuit precedents out there that bike lawyers are probably familiar with.

I think cyclists need to lift some weights, but I understand that's just me.

Unlikely. Innocent until proven guilty, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the driver didn't move over. Still a step in the right direction, though — and reminds me that I need to get my camera set up on my bike.

I would expect that from someone who is too fat for this sport but I know that is not you. :-} I have 3 concussions and one unconscious with a helmet so I have a different perspective along with the knowledge that there is a 6yo here who survived a crash in the trailer but her bare head mother on the e-bike did not. A few years ago a fellow cyclist here fell clipping in on the drive way no helmet yet fell, hit his head and done. Please lets drop the helmet issue before ........................0...0 I'm afraid this law low will just create more animosity for cyclists when the 3 foot law should be enough. Perhaps.

lol our language has its flaws, doesn't it? It would allow them to prohibit riding an electric bicycle on a trail designated for horses, hiking, or other recreational use. An oxford comma may have cleared the original quote up, but maybe not.

But I'm glad you read it that way, because I didn't see anything wrong with it until your comment, which then made me picture an electric bicycle on horseback.

Would be a hilarious law, but then it would be a sad one too because that would mean it had to have been a "thing" .
i tend to read the words at face value & don't assume or try not interpreting them for what it is not.

Yeah, the I suspect the only really consequential pieces of AB1909 are that bikes can legally jump reds (unless specifically prohibited) and that pedestrians can legally jaywalk. Both are consequential mainly because they should curtail police activity against poor, Black, and other highly preyed-upon communities.

I’d love to be wrong and see more police action against cars behaving badly towards cyclists, but things like close passes are just hard to be caught in the act, and I think that a safe pass— i.e. within not less than 3ft in CA— will be considered a safe pass regardless of an open adjacent lane, and therefore a very low level concern for police. Like, if someone pulls halfway into an adjacent lane, yielding something like 6ft to the bicycle, what’s the point of a police enforcement? I also doubt a cyclist could do anything trying to take a pass like that to the courts; what’s the complaint? Excessively safe passing without moving into adjacent lane?

i didn’t see this part. i thought they were just extending the ability to cross on the “walk” sign to bikes? around here, there are four way ped crossing intersections (all the walk signs light up, lights still red) and the walk signs come on quite a few seconds before the light turns green. currently, it’s technically illegal to cross on a bike then.

​​​​​​I could get too fat for this sport, I need a goal for the new year.

I worked with somebody who ruptured a disc in her spine sneezing, her doctors said lack of exercise left her with not enough core strength to protect herself. She went through a lot of agony, and lost her job because she was in too much pain to be able to sit. I sure don't want to go through an experience like that and am happy to learn from other people, so I lift weights to protect myself. Just like I wear a helmet when I ride, to protect myself.

I'm glad you're still here! 😁

Those have popped up where I live over the past year or so. I figured since cyclists are allowed on the sidewalk here (don't know about your locale), they would be allowed to cross on the walk sign if using the sidewalk but wait for the green if using the vehicle lanes. Never seen or heard of a cyclist or driver getting a ticket for shoving off a second early, though.

In parts of Pasadena, they have intersections that go full red while the walk signs let pedestrians cross in any direction (even angled), then no walking while the various phases of vehicle green lights happen. Saw pedestrians getting ticketed on more than one occasion when I lived there.

Sounds like a freak case, otherwise we would have a ton of unemployed Americans considering how few of them exercise. Also, I'm pretty sure the company was legally obligated to at least attempt to accommodate her new disability. A sit/stand desk may have solved her problem. She may have a claim if it hasn't been too long.

Hong Kong works like that; I had never seen or heard of it in the US. Interesting.

It's a small part of Pasadena that has a very high volume of pedestrian traffic. A few intersections in Santa Monica as well.