I think they meant CalBikes <https://calbike.org/> - The California Bicycle Coalition. (Getting the name wrong for non-profits is routine in state and business press releases, and it barely even registers anymore.) Of course they could have meant CABO <http://www.cabobike.org/>, which is a very VC-oriented group, so I can't imagine them being involved with anything having to do with bike lanes and such.
In relation to Rob's question about why there might be a concern about e-bikes on trails... Yes, some of it is how much potential they have for acceleration, which is really more important than overall speed on dirt trails. (Not that speed is not important for overall safety of shared-use trails, but acceleration has more potential for causing erosion.) And personally, yes, I am worried about the "slippery slope" of allowing any motorized bicycles on trails, paths, lanes, and other facilities that were designed for non-motorized uses. After all, we already have all-electric CARS, so fast e-bikes aren't just in the future. And we have probably already heard complaints about regular bicyclists that are going to fast around pedestrians or slower bicyclists. But I think California saw the writing on the wall and knew that they had to do something to codify where e-bikes might be OK and how fast they could go. I believe the speed limits listed are maximum capabilities of the bikes, not ones that people are supposed to voluntarily supposed to follow. (Unlike most cars that can go 100-120 and yet are never driven anywhere with that speed allowed. After all, even in the west, the maximum interstate speeds are not over 80 mph. I supposed that power capability is needed to deal with wind or hills, but I've never seen an interstate with an 80 mph limit that had ANY hills.) Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst 608-263-9984 (o) 608-225-0002 (c) [email protected] All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or any other group with which I am affiliated. On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Jym Dyer via Bikies < [email protected]> wrote: > > It get a bit confusing because of California's designation of > > types of bike facilities into Class I, II, III, and IV. Just > > a bit of "We have to be different because we are California." > > =v= Well, every state "has to be different" because that keeps > a legislative body employed to rewrite state sovereign laws. :^) > This can be maddening when trying to figure out traffic laws for > a specific state, even though there's some attempt to keep them > uniform across the country. Edge cases galore, all boiling down > to a politician's gift for legalese -- or a lobbyist's gift. > > > The California bicycle association was instrumental in pushing > > legislation working in concert with industry. What resulted > > is AB1096: > > =v= I don't know of a group called the "California bicycle > association." I do know that industry lobbyists gave lots of > money to every bicycle advocacy organization in sight, and their > goal was to get electric bikes defined as the exact same thing > as bicycles, in an attempt to bypass existing categories of > motorized devices. > > =v= AB1096 fell short, but it all boils down to is electric > bikes going a certain speed being permitted in facilities that > were designed for 5mph less, which is pretty stupid. And, of > course, everyone's pretending that the bikes won't go faster > than that speed, which in reality has never, ever been true. > <_Jym_> > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
