After the last Active Transportation Committee meeting, one got the sense that the City’s e-bike ordinance was in limbo — on the one hand, while the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) was doing its best to come up with alternatives to its blanket ban on e-bikes on the sidewalks, the public commenters (including yours truly) were having none of it. The ATC members also seemed skeptical.

Now, we have agenda for the next ATC meeting on May 1, and it contains a further updated ordinance. The sidewalk ban is out. But what else is in?

Mopeds in the bike lane?

The first interesting update is to add Section 4-26(a)(4), which now states that “motorized bicycles as defined by the California Vehicle Code Section 406(a) and electric bicycles as defined in § 4-22(b) are permitted in a bicycle lane, at a speed no greater than is reasonable or prudent, and in a manner that does not endanger the safety of other bicyclists or the rider (emphasis mine).

Weirdly I think this new language goes too far. A “motorized bicycle” under CVC Section 406(a) includes fix pedal bikes that can go up to 30 mph as well as mopeds, and both of these vehicles require a driver’s license with an M1 or M2 endorsement. Now, if you pair this section with new language added to the definition of “bicycle lane” — such that “bicycle lane” will also refer to Class I and Class IV bicycle facilities — this would technically permit mopeds and motorized bicycles to use Class I multiuse paths (think the Joann Trail) and Class IV cycletracks (like the bollard-protected lanes on Placentia Avenue). I have a feeling we might have borrowed language from the CVC when crafting Section 4-26(a)(4) without recognizing that the CVC defines “bicycle lane” much more narrowly than we do, such that CVC definition only includes Class II bicycle lanes.

I don’t think that was the intent, so I hope the ATC takes a look at that.

E-bikes strangely left in limbo

As mentioned above the section banning e-bikes from sidewalks was struck. But is there anything left that gives the CMPD grounds to police sidewalk behavior? The desired regulation seemingly lives in Section 4-26(g), the draft of which states that “no person shall ride a bicycle in a manner or at an unreasonable speed upon a roadway or sidewalk which endangers the safety of pedestrians, the rider, motorists or property. Bicycle riders will ride in a manner and at speeds that are reasonable and prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic conditions, and the surface and width of the roadway or sidewalk.”

This seems well and good, except there is one problem: it doesn’t, on its face, apply to e-bikes. If you look up in Section 4-22, “bicycle” is defined separately and apart from “electric bicycle”, and the definition of “bicycle” makes no reference to also including all “electric bicycles”. Drafting practice would suggest, therefore, that unless e-bikes are specifically referenced, they aren’t automatically picked up in the definition of “bicycle”.

So does Section 4-26(g) even apply to e-bikes on the sidewalk? It isn’t clear! And if this is going to be the ordinance used to police e-bicyclists on our sidewalks, it should be made clear. Personally, I would just draft it so that the term “electric bicycle” is read into the definition of “bicycle”, unless otherwise specified. But sliding in “e-bike” everywhere would do just as well.

What about other weird cases?

While much of the concerns around our mobility rules have centered on e-bikes, we shouldn’t overlook another popular device: scooters, both the standing/upright (like the Bird and Lime scooters you saw a few years ago littering major cities) and seated/disability aid varieties. Like e-bikes, I would think that we would welcome these devices in all of our bicycle facilities. Note that, no matter what we do, the CVC specifically bans “electric scooters” from sidewalks but does permit mobility scooters to use them. I see a lot of folks using mobility scooters in the bike lanes, no doubt because the flat pavement is far easier to navigate in a scooter than the tilted and undulating surface of many of our sidewalks (thanks, incessant curb cuts).

The “annual traffic report” returns! 🙌

In a completely unexpected but very welcome surprise, the Staff also added back Section 10-41, which required the traffic division file an annual report with the City Council detailing the number of traffic accidents, traffic deaths and traffic injuries. I lamented this requirement being removed when I first got a look at the draft ordinance. But, I figured, since this report hadn’t (to my knowledge) been filed in years, it wouldn’t be put back in. Lo and behold, there it is! Now, we just need to actually get that report…