Staff Recommends Removing Parking, Restriping B Street

Share:
Photo of a trailer that protrudes into the bike path along B Street
Photo of a trailer that protrudes into the bike path along B Street

Back in November, when an overwhelming number of residents expressed concerns about the safety risks involved with the parking configurations along B Street between 7th and 8th, the city council pulled back to take a more community dialogue-based approach.

Now staff has returned, recommending an option that includes restriping B Street from 7th to 8th Streets and prohibiting parking from 7th to 14th Streets. Staff would be directed to return with an Ordinance that removes parking on B Street between 7th and 14th Streets.

The cost of the project would be about $17,000, which includes both staff time and infrastructure improvements. The funds are available in the current year’s budget in the Transportation Division’s Signing and Striping Program.

Back on November 18, the staff was directed by council to hold a “professionally facilitated public meeting to discuss issues along B Street pertaining to bicycling and the impacts that parking, yard waste piles and organics containerization present to this mode of transportation.”

The purpose of that meeting “was to have an open dialogue to try to break down the barriers that have been put up between the different stake holders and to try to have a discussion about concerns and possible solutions.”

The purpose was not consensus but rather “to provide a better understanding of the different perspectives, what needs, desires and concerns are involved in each of the scenarios and to try to develop some mutually agreeable solutions.”

The meeting, held January 27, was attended by 32 people and included 4 residents of B Street and 28 people with bicycle-related interests.

B St represents a unique challenge as it carries a high volume of traffic, and it is one of the few north-south connections between downtown and major community facilities. It also serves a number of public facilities, including four schools, two churches, the city, county and school district offices, the Veteran’s Memorial and the County Library.

At the same time, it is a residential street and there are concerns expressed over the safety of bicyclists due to the effect of parking, yard waste piles and containers all vying for the same space within or adjacent to the bike lanes; and the potential impact of the loss of parking from the residents’ perspective.

There are two key roadway sections.

B-street-explanation

Option 1 calls for the restriping of B Street from 7th to 8th streets to the same configuration as exists north of 8th Street: “11’ travel lanes, 2’ buffers and 6’ bike lanes. Full removal of parking from 7th Street to 14th Street, which removes the conflicts between parked vehicles and bicycle travel entirely.”

Staff writes, “This option would have the greatest impact to B Street residents by displacing existing parking at all times. The loss of parking between 7th and 8th Streets could be absorbed within the adjacent Old North Davis Neighborhood, N Permit District, which does have marked permit parking spaces, but also has available unrestricted parking.”

The President of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association sent a letter to the city indicating their support for the inclusion of these residents into the N Permit District should Option 1 be implemented.

For the section of B Street north of 8th Street, parking would be prohibited at all times. Staff writes, “As there is currently unrestricted parking on the streets east of B Street, there is available parking. In addition, all residences have driveways and all other facilities have parking lots.”

Staff is recommending this option, but Option 2 would “Restripe B Street between 7th and 8th Streets to the same configuration as north of 8th Street to eliminate the parking lane, widen bike lanes and add bike buffers. Extend existing parking restrictions from 8th to 14th Streets south to 7th Street. Allow parking in the bike lane on weekday nights and weekends.”

Staff writes, “This option would remove parking during the weekday daytime hours, when bicycle traffic is highest, but would not during the evening and weekend hours. With this option there would be impacts to parking, however all but one residence along this block have driveways, therefore the daytime parking restriction appears to be less of an impact to the residents, while still allowing for evening and weekend parking to accommodate resident and guest parking.”

For the section between 8th and 14th Streets, the existing parking restriction from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. would remain, allowing for a clear path of travel during the day, however allowing for resident parking at night and on the weekends.

There is a third option, as well, which would maintain the existing striping and parking configurations.

At the November meeting, a number of public commenters spoke.

Michael Bisch, of the Davis Downtown, said he bikes every morning in Davis with his seven-year-old. “I would most definitely not take my kids on B Street on bicycles between Seventh and Eighth with the cars parked in the way.” He added, “It is kind of a harrowing experience when there’s a bunch of stuff sitting in the bike path.”

Mont Hubbard, president of Davis Bicycles!, said they favor the option to restrict parking at all hours. He said, “We also recognize… it’s really better to deal with the street in a holistic way.” He disagreed with staff’s assessment that B Street between Eighth and Fourteenth was functional for all users. He stated, “It is striking the difference between staff’s assessment and the feelings of the users of the street.” He said they have conducted their own survey, and the vast majority of their 186 respondents felt that “B Street was a serious safety problem. 78 percent said cars parked in bike lanes are an impediment to safety. That’s only true from Eighth to Fourteenth right now.”

Darell Dickey added, “Council should eliminate all parking from Seventh to Fourteenth to protect our vulnerable users.”   He asked, “How does parking in the bike lane anywhere, at any time, fulfill the council goals?” He added, “How does parking in the bike lane conform to the vulnerable user clause that’s in the transportation element of our general plan? That clause says, where limited street space exists, priority should be given to non-motorized modes to protect the safety and comfort of those most vulnerable users.” He noted that this is not just safety, because people who are not comfortable are not riding in those sections.

For information see staff report: 07 B Street Corridor Striping Plan

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

60 thoughts on “Staff Recommends Removing Parking, Restriping B Street”

    1. zaqzaq

      Conflict resolution only works if people are willing to show up and participate in a civil discussion.  I suspect that the residents did not think that was possible with a bunch of activists.  Maybe Robb should host a discussion on the mandatory use of helmets by adults.

        1. Davis Progressive

          of course you could argue that with regards to helmets you are assuming your own risk, whereas by having a five foot tunner with random door openinings and large numbers of a kids the risk is external.

        2. darelldd

          Thank you DP.

          Yes, while a helmet can reduce injuries in the event of a collision, a helmet does nothing to prevent the collision in the first place. And a helmet also provides no reduction in injuries to any other part of our bodies. Making everybody wear a helmet and calling them “safe” is the dangerous and easy way out.

        3. Barack Palin

          Seat belts don’t stop a collision in the first place either but drivers still have to wear them.  Wearing a helmut protects the most vital part of most people’s body, their heads.

        4. Dave Hart

          I hope all the bike helmet for adult cyclist advocates are also in favor of a mandatory helmet for all adults walking on a public sidewalk.  No exceptions. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    2. Robb Davis

      DP – When Brett proposed, and I agreed, to instruct staff to hold a community dialogue on this matter I tried to make it clear that I did not expect the discussion to lead to some kind of “consensus.”  Rather, I said that on contentious issues like this I feel it is useful to take the time to assure that people with differing views are provided a structured and safe environment to understand the views of others whose views differ from theirs.  I am committed to creating dialogue spaces like this because I believe that a resilient community is one that engages conflict in a productive way.

      I attended the event and while it is clear that few or no people left the event with their minds changed, there were conversations between people who normally would not have taken the time to listen to the concerns, perspectives and views of others.  Is that worth 2 hours of people’s time?  I believe it is but recognize that others may not.  I also realize that becoming a community that take the time to air differences in productive ways does not happen with a single dialogue of this kind.  We need practices that “form” us to be people who engage conflict productively.  That takes time.

      I don’t know if “zaqzaq” was there but I feel like people attending the event treated each other with respect even if they had strong views on the matter.

      Finally, I don’t see this as a conflict resolution process as much as a means to deal more productively with conflict.  There is a difference.

        1. Dave Hart

          How about a law mandating helmets for adult pedestrians on any public sidewalk or parking lot to and from their car?  Pretty stupid idea, wouldn’t you agree?

        2. Barack Palin

          How about a law mandating helmets for adult pedestrians on any public sidewalk or parking lot to and from their car?  Pretty stupid idea, wouldn’t you agree?

          Yes, I agree that’s a stupid idea.  But on the other hand bikers riding out in the streets with the cars I think would be well served wearing helmets.

          Bikers are all about safety aren’t they?

  1. keithvb

    Wow. The recommendation to prohibit parking may be bike friendly but surely isn’t people friendly.
    Now we can add the folks living on B St from 7th to 14th as bike foes.

    I ride my bike on B St and can’t figure out what the problem is.

    Can someone please let me know what is really going on?

    Do the residents of B St also like this solution?

    1. darelldd

      >> I ride my bike on B St and can’t figure out what the problem is.

      It may help if you ride in the shoes of a school-aged child. Do you regularly ride it at night? I also personally have no problem riding this corridor, as I typically ride it at the same speed as traffic, out in the general purpose lane. But I am not the typical transportation cyclist in Davis.

      >> Do the residents of B St also like this solution?

      Though it is popular to view this as “B Street residents vs bike advocates” that is inaccurate. The participants in the community meeting did not all fall into one of these two categories, no matter what the reporting says. And to answer your question: Many of the residents support it yes, while a few do not. Most cyclists support it as well, while a few do not. In the end, it garnered overwhelming support. It is supported by those who wish for safer and more comfortable travel in this busy, public corridor.

       

      1. zaqzaq

        It looks like it has garnered overwhelming support by the small minority of citizens who care about this issue while the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this city have no clue concerning this issue.  Little by little the bike activists are taking over the city all in the name of safety.  How about mandatory helmets in the name of safety?

        1. darelldd

          >> It looks like it has garnered overwhelming support by the small minority of citizens who care about this issue

          Right. That’s how these things work. You only get a say in the matter if you care enough to say something. We should guess at what the silent majority would like?

        2. darelldd

          >> That’s how the Nazi party came to power in Germany.

          Because so many people spent too much time bitching on online forums, and not enough time learning about the issues and pushing for what was best for the citizens? Let’s not make THAT mistake again!

    2. Barack Palin

      The meeting, held January 27, was attended by 32 people and included 4 residents of B Street and 28 people with bicycle-related interests.

      It looks like the residents were outnumbered 7 to 1 by bike advocates at this meeting.  I’ll bet when this comes before to the city council that those numbers will be quite different when the residents realize what’s going on.

      1. darelldd

        Are you implying that there were only two types of people at this meeting? In what category do you place the residents who support proper bicycle infrastructure? In what category to you place a non-B-Street resident, non-bike-advocate who wishes our streets to be safer for everybody?

        Each resident in the effected area has been hand-delivered invitations to attend each of the events where this is being discussed. If they haven’t realized for months what is “going on” then I’m not sure how things will be different now. This discussion has been going on for almost a year now.

      2. hpierce

        Goes beyond darrelld’s and DP’s comments.  I’m a “bike advocate”, and was rigorous in educating, monitoring, mentoring my children how to ride their bicycles as so my genes don’t disappear from the “pool”.  On B Street, I think risks are exagerrated, and the proposed solution is not necessarily the best.  WHEN YOU WEIGH all the competing concerns.

        I don’t believe that has been done, on an analytical (opposed to “gut”, or “informed”) basis.  But it’s a “fait accompli”, politically, and I recognize that.

        By doing the “outreach”, the CC got their “political cover”.  The residents may have been noticed, but the “strident” bike advocates (but not me) were noticed far more by social/other media, I believe.  As is their right.  I believe that a resident with concerns who went to that meeting, unless the “moderator” was extremely good, would have felt something like a Christian facing the lions in the collossium.  But don’t know that.

        If 100% of the residents of B, between Seventh and Fourteenth, showed up Tuesday objecting to the parking ban, it is my opinion that it would matter not a whit/scintilla.  The CC would “thank them for the input” and would vote for the total parking ban.  It’s a done deal.

        The process has been somewhat ‘dishonest’ as the issue has been almost completely framed as black-white/ complete change/status quo issue, and exacerbated by the City’s decision to add “no-go”/buffer zones that excluded additional pavement from parking/bikes/motor vehicles.  Brilliant strategic move by those whose view was the ONLY answer that is acceptable is the complete abolition of parking.  Gotta give that ‘influence’ credit.  Masterful.

        I predict, about 5-10 years from now, the then residents of that stretch of B will be approaching a different CC, arguing for a different approach that would allow at least some on-street parking, and the current advocates of the proposal will cry “foul”, citing “we resolved this once and for all years ago”.  Anyone want to make that bet?

        1. Miwok

          Good luck getting a pizza delivered.. I assume this ban applies to delivery as well?

          Next: Total ban on traffic because the cyclists are “nervous” on B Street.

        2. Dave Hart

          Gee, I wonder why the residents all along Eighth Street haven’t gotten their parking ban overturned?  The fact is, there are many blocks of no parking in Davis.  Some of them have been around so long nobody even notices.  What do all those people on Eighth St. do?  They park their cars somewhere except on the street as do the people who visit them and make deliveries.

          I was at the meeting and made suggestions to accommodate both bikes and cars and my idea was shot down including by the residents in the area.  In other words, I went as a cyclist with an opinion on the parking between 7th and 8th Street only and an open mind about how to make the situation work for both bikes, cars and parking needs.  I dare say, you can’t have an opinion about how the evening went if you weren’t there.  I talked with one resident who was actually more concerned about being forced to use the bins instead of piles for the claw than he was about parking.  He was vocal and not particularly happy about that issue but agreed no parking in front of his house made sense.

          The room was minority student age.  So that doesn’t fly.  The people that turned out, like me, gave up an evening that I would rather have used in some other way to listen and participate.  That is the way things should work.  Democracy is more about participation than voting.  What would have been totally unacceptable, is if the CC went to the trouble of putting on the meeting, then ignoring the results and carrying on as if splitting the baby makes sense.

    1. darelldd

      Zaqzaq – you seem fixated on this red herring of mandatory helmet law. So fixated on it and “bicycle advocates,” in fact, that it sounds as if you would like to use it as a punitive measure against those who wish to ride a bike.

      It may surprise you to learn that there is a significant difference between encouraging helmet use and mandating helmet use. The former can lead to a moderate decrease in head injuries while cycling, while the latter is more likely to decrease cycling safety for many not-so-obvious-yet-demonstrated reasons. Please continue to lend your support for helmet use. Every one of my cycling friends who regularly wears a helmet (myself included) supports helmet use. And every one of them is opposed to a mandatory helmet law.

      How can there be a negative correlation between mandatory helmet laws and safety? There are many. I will provide two links – one factual and inclusive of references. And one far more local and humorous.

      https://calbike.org/sb192quickfacts/

      And our own Bob Dunning on the subject:

      http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/dunning/bob-dunning-big-brother-wants-to-ride-with-you/

      Encouraging helmet use is akin to building proper transportation infrastructure. Vulnerable users are better protected from hazards. If you are truly interested in safety as you imply – let’s encourage proper bike lanes, and helmet use. And let’s put to bed this notion that a mandatory helmet law will make us safer.

      If you would like to mandate something that is proven to create safer streets for everybody, let’s reduce the speed limits throughout town.

      1. zaqzaq

        The people opposed to mandatory helmets sound a lot like the motorcyclists who opposed mandatory helmet use.  Senate Bill 192 proposed by senator Liu would mandate helmet use on bikes resulting in a $25 fine.  Under Liu’s proposal 75% of helmet fines would be given to county programs to educate cyclists and help low-income families purchase or borrow helmets for their children.  About one-fourth would go to the general fund in the city where the ticket was issued.

        In our family we all wear helmets.  One, because it is safer and secondly to set a good example for our children.  I support Liu’s effort at increased safety.  I am aware of conflicting studies on the issue and still feel strongly about this.

         

        1. zaqzaq

          The topic of the column deals with bike safety on B St.  It would be safer if they all rode their bikes wearing helmets instead of bitching about cars, parked cars, trash, and speed limits.

        2. hpierce

          Don… ‘getting’ perhaps, but not near ‘there’ yet.  The issue is ‘safety’, or the ‘perception of safety’… neither are easily quantified by “fact”.  The one crash I saw on B, in this stretch, had to do with a bicyclist, black clothing, no lights, no reflector, in the dark, plowing into a car who’s driver had stopped at the driveway to St James (coming out), never saw the cyclist, slowly moved out, and the cyclist plowed into the side for the car.  Car had its lights on.  I was about 20 feet away when I saw it happen.  No time to yell out, until it was a fait accompli.  The driver tried to make sure the cyclist was OK, was cursed by the cyclist, who then rode off, none the worst except for an apparent bent front rim.

          Oh, the cyclist had no helmet.  The driver reported the accident to the police as a “counter report” (in the office, no officer responded to the scene).

          The B street bicycle lane situation is nothing new.  Despite what some appear to believe, bike lanes on B Street didn’t happen until early 80’s.  Then the residents “compromised” as to parking, by living with no parking 5 days a week, 7 A to 6 P, as I recall.  The room for bicycles was recently compromised when the City recently took ~ 3-4 feet out of the width of the street for “buffers”, which I am convinced were placed to exacerbate the situation and lead to the obvious result… no parking anywhere, anytime on B, between Eighth and Fourteenth.  The residents compromised, and now have BEEN compromised.

          The “fix” is in, and the CC will eliminate the parking.  And probably will not change crash rates, at all, but some will get their “pound of flesh” from those evil folk who drive cars, or have visitors who do, and park on the street.

          There were other potential solutions but those have been dismissed, pretty much out of hand.  Didn’t fit with the goal of a select, vocal group, many of whom, methinks, care as much or more about a statement re: banning on-street parking of motor vehicles, than they do about crash history or current & future ‘safety’.  But that’s only my opinion, after experiencing the street, as pedestrian, cyclist, and MV operator over more than 35 years.

        3. darelldd

          >> One, because it is safer and secondly to set a good example for our children.  I support Liu’s effort at increased safety.

          You and I are in agreement on both points. Please continue to promote helmet use, as I do. And support Liu’s (mistargeted) effort at increased safety by opposing a mandatory helmet law. Promoting helmet use and promoting a mandatory helmet law are not the same thing.

          As OddManOut points out – if you feel that mandatory helmet laws would be a net benefit for cyclists, and you wish to use helmets to prevent *significantly* more head injuries, then push for helmet use in automobiles. Showers too, for that matter.

      2. hpierce

        darreld… hate when I have to agree with you, but in this case, I have an “out”.  Like you I encourage the use of bike helmets for all, but oppose the mandatory piece.  My “out” is I hope your ‘reduce speed limits’ part was a ploy/riposte.  If you have “studied the studies”, speed is somewhat related to crash severity, not crash occurrence.  Just like helmets. “Stupids” such as operating while impaired (bicycle or MV), turning left from a bike lane across a travel lane, instead of ‘taking the lane’, and/or presence of intersections (conflict points, driveways included), are FAR more significant to crash occurrence, rather than speed.  Assume you know that.

        Although I like signing and striping to a certain extent, I also realize that driver/cyclist/ped behavior can too much lull the road users into a false sense of security, or a sense of “entitlement” that tends to dilute “judgement” and caution.  IMO.

  2. Frankly

    Portland is considering an ordinance that allows bicyclers to run red lights.  Apparently it is never enough even as we enter the absurd.  From my perspective the biking activists are just another tribe and they frequently and consistently demonstrate their tribalism with their “my way or the highway” demands.

    1. Don Shor

      Maybe you should google things before you start your pejoratives.
      http://bikeportland.org/2015/03/13/bill-legislature-legalize-safe-crossings-unresponsive-red-lights-135551

      As the O(regonian) correctly explains in the seventh paragraph of the web version of its front-page story, SB 533 would make it legal to “proceed with caution” through a red light that is trying, but failing, to detect one’s bicycle or motorcycle. This would only be allowed after someone has waited through a full cycle….
      Similar “safe on red” or “dead red” laws exist for bicycles and/or motorcyles in 14 other states, The Oregonian says in paragraph 19 of its story. (The correct number of states, we’re told, may actually be 13.)

      But sure, why not declare this a sign of tribalism and set up another false us-vs-them paradigm?

  3. odd man out

    Zaqzaq asks: “How about a city ordinance mandating bike helmets for all in the name of safety?”

    Answer: because CVC 21 prohibits cities from enacting ordinances that are not in compliance with the Vehicle Code. That’s the same law that prevented Mayor Lois Wolk from pursuing a mandatory bike bell ordinance many years ago and why those who wanted to ban bicyclists from using 5th Street (pre-reconfiguration) also could not get their way.

    Uniformity of Code
    21. (a) Except as otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable and uniform throughout the state and in all counties and municipalities therein, and a local authority shall not enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution on the matters covered by this code, including ordinances or resolutions that establish regulations or procedures for, or assess a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a violation of, matters covered by this code, unless expressly authorized by this code.

    (b) To the extent permitted by current state law, this section does not impair the current lawful authority of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, a joint powers authority, or any member agency constituted therein as of July 1, 2010, to enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the management of public lands within its jurisdiction.

  4. Frankly

    I agree that B street between 7th and 8th is a problem, but the rest of B street between 1st and 14th is fine.   I ride it all the time.  Those that claim it is not fine are extremists.

    1. Jim Frame

      I rode most of that stretch about an hour ago, and it’s decidedly not fine. The cars parked in front of St. James crowded us into the “car lane,” which meant that southbound cars were having to cross into the northbound lane in order to get around us.

      1. jrberg

        I know Jim Frame, and Jim is definitely not an “extremist,” whatever that is supposed to mean.  St. James has plenty of on-site parking, but people choose not to use it because of “convenience.”  That means it would take them an extra minute to exit the parking lot.

      2. Frankly

        “crowded”?   Come on Jim… there is that stripped section that allows a bike rider to pass safely.  I have me you.  You are not a large person.  What kind of bike are you riding that needs more than that to safely pass parked cars?  or are you riding abreast with other riders and complaining that you had to move to single file?

        I am going to put on my helmet cam and go ride B street and post it.  On this issue I think you and other bike activists are pushing your agenda beyond reasonable.

         

      1. Davis Progressive

        frankly calling anyone an extremist is a little silly.  but reading this conversation, i’m disappointed with how much it got undermined by people who had the clear intention of doing just that.  don, sorry, but you needed to step in much sooner.

  5. odd man out

    Frankly mentions Portland’s efforts to enact an ordinance to allow cyclists to run red lights. The state of Idaho has what is widely known among cycling advocates as the “Idaho Law” (clever name!). It allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. While I’m one professional cycling advocate who does not support the proposal, it is widely supported by others.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

    And, please don’t suggest that the city should enact such an ordinance. Again, CVC 21 prohibits any city from doing so.

  6. odd man out

    I assume that those writing here who support a mandatory all-ages helmet law for cyclists will also support –even more adamantly –an all-ages –including passengers –mandatory helmet law for all motorists. The number of serious and fatal head injuries among motorists far outweigh that among cyclists, despite the widespread use and presence of seatbelts and airbags. In short, a mandatory helmet law for motorists would save many more lives than such a law for cyclists.

    1. Biddlin

      I don’t give a damn about a helmet law, but I want anyone over 15 1/2 years of age made to carry liability insurance and register their bike with the state.

      ;>)/

       

  7. odd man out

    Zaqzaq wrote: “The topic of the column deals with bike safety on B St.  It would be safer if they all rode their bikes wearing helmets instead of bitching about cars, parked cars, trash, and speed limits.”

    However, the fact is that even if every cyclist was wearing a helmet, that practice does not prevent crashes which may result in serious or fatal head injuries. Bike helmets may reduce injury in a crash, but they don’t prevent crashes. And many bike crash injuries or fatalities have nothing to do with head injuries.

  8. Tia Will

    Biddlin

    and register their bike with the state.”

    I understand the rationale for insurance. Why would you want them to register their bike with the state ?

     

  9. hpierce

    Tia:  it’s very simple.

    Does your having a license to practice medicine make you a better doctor, or was it all your training and experience that led up to receiving your ‘license’, and your subsequent education and experience?  Then, how could a bicycle, who actually “has” the license, be more safe than the same bicycle, without one?

    Does mal-practice insurance protect your patients from your making a serious mistake?  Does having auto insurance decrease the chance that you’ll be in a crash?  Does your HO insurance make it less likely that you’ll have a home fire, or a trip/fall accident?

    It’s pretty simple.

    What will enhance safety is education, experience, and enforcement.  Engineering solutions can do amazingly little without those.

    1. Tia Will

      hpierce

      Please forgive me if I am being obtuse, but I am still not getting it. Using your analogies, it is true that it is my years of training, experience, and ongoing education that make me safe to practice medicine. This is what licensing is about.

      Registering my scalpel with the state would not make me any more competent as a doctor. My understanding was that the recommendation was for registering the bike, not for licensing the rider. Did I misunderstand this comment  ?

      1. hpierce

        guess had tongue too fully in cheek, so garbled my message.  Bicycle licensing, or bicyclists carrying insurance will have zilch, nada, zero safety benefits.  Period.

  10. Alan Miller

    The Idaho stop is the only sane way to go.  Essentially, it legalizes what is currently enforced.  (wink & nod)

    California said F-you to the feds on mary-j laws.

    Surely Davis can say F-you to the state on bicycle laws.

    1. Dave Hart

      Finally, a voice of reason and moderation.  As long as we get that helmet law for adult pedestrians on public sidewalks, parking lots and parks.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for