Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

It looks a little premature to do that at the moment, and the assistant will let me know a good time to do that. We will need an author to get started. I understand we have somebody coming in. There he is right in front of me. Perfect. Excellent timing.

And so we will go to file item five, AB 1904 Assembly Member award. You're welcome to present whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Well, good afternoon, Senators. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. AB 1904 would grant transit agencies with the authority to equip transit buses with a flashing led yield right of way sign on the left of the bus providing the agency's governing board provides a resolution to adopt the signage.

This authority would reduce traffic delays experienced by transit buses when attempting to re enter traffic and facilitate safer reentry, allowing operators to provide more timely services. For witnesses, I have in support Alchemy Graham, the legislative and regulatory advocate for the California Transit Association, and when the time is appropriate, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you and you may proceed. You have a couple minutes to present.

Perfect. Thank you. Mister Chair and Members. Alchemy Graham on behalf of the California Transit Association, on behalf of our more than 220 Member organizations, I'm here today to support to voice our support for and proud co sponsorship of AB 1904.

Many, if not all of us here today have experienced sitting in traffic directly behind a bus while the operator is trying to attempt attempting to re enter traffic from a scheduled stop. I'm sure we've all been there.

Drivers often attempt to pass the bus rather than slow down or stop to allow the operator to merge back into traffic. Unsafe driving conditions. While seemingly minor, the idling time can add up very quickly, leading to significantly delayed bus rivals along the service route.

In 2001, pursuant to the law, as established by AB 1218, former Assembly Member Keeley, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority launched pilot programs debuting flashing signs on the rear of their buses.

Among other things, the programs concluded that the yield signs were significantly beneficial in facilitating a smooth reentry into traffic and promoting safer driving conditions for bus operators.

Building off of these pilot programs, AB 1904 takes an important step forward in prioritizing public transit by offering operators an enhanced sense of safety when navigating congested roads and helping streamline bus services. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to come up and express support for this Bill? Please do so.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Ross Buckley, on behalf of Ventura County Transportation Commission in support.

All right. Anyone else wish to come up under this me too section in support.

Again, this is file item five, Ward AB 1904. I see no one in the Committee room. Coming forward, we will ask for opposition. Is there a lead opposition witness? I do not believe we have a registered opposition witness. Seeing none. Is there anyone in the Committee room who wishes to come forward and express opposition to this Bill?

Seeing none, we will come back to the Committee, but before we take Committee comment, I'd like to establish a quorum while we can, and I'll ask the assistant to call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

All right. We have a quorum established. We'll come back to the Committee. Again. It's file item five, AB 1904. Assembly Ward comments or questions? Senator Archuleta?

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. Obviously, there's some elements to this, number one being safety. And number two, obviously, would be not just the vehicles behind the bus, but the bus driver itself. And the other, of course, is the timing for this, moving this along throughout the state.

So it's obviously very important that we take a good look at this. And I've studied it, and it seems to me that you're on the right track. What do you think the cost will be per bus? Because we're going to disseminate that information to the other transit authorities as we go forward.

So there's a figure that we're aware of. I'm sure it would be absorbable, again, set the discretion of a local agency if they want to adopt this by ordinance. And it also would include the requirement that they do a public outreach campaign so people are familiar with this new signage and how to respond to it. If you have a figure.

Yeah. Thank you for the question. So in the numbers that we have seen in the, in the reports that we've seen from the pilot programs, we've seen anywhere from about 250 per bus to about 600 per bus. I will say that those numbers were based on when those pilot programs were completed or, excuse me, launched in 2001.

So those numbers could be different now, but I will mirror what the Assembly Member just said, that this does not at all require the agencies to adopt the yield signs, merely allows them to do so. So if they wish to not take on those costs, they also do have the option of installing static decals.

So the flashing signs are a little bit more expensive because they're flashing led signs, but the static decal signs are significantly less expensive. I don't have an exact number, going.

Back to my point about public safety and so on, but also the timing that we're trying, you know, and service to the community. So as we move along, I'd like to move it, and I will be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta. We'll be happy to get those figures for you from my home county in Valley transportation authority, Senator Seyarto.

All right, thank you. I had a couple questions about, you talked about a study, she talked about a study that was done. Was there any studies done on driver confusion about when this, because this isn't a law. It's just a sign that says yield, and that's kind of what the turn signal does, too.

When they put on their turn signal, you now know that this bus is about to pull out and they should probably yield or it would be a good idea. Well, this doesn't do anything more than that other than say, hey, do the same thing.

And one of the things that you'll find in a lot of accidents is that confusion leads to accidents. And so when two people kind of don't know what the other is going to do, they wind up running into each other.

Did you have any, do you have any studies and maybe questions of people that have experienced these signs that they said there was additional confusion?

Well, if I could add, that was in our analysis. The CHP Commission study from Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County transportation agencies as well, noted that when that study came back, that showed that 60% of the operators, the transit bus operators, felt that there was some effectiveness. And that's from the operator's point of view.

And then from some national studies in the University of South Florida, had them moving the bus safely back into traffic.

Study showed that when there was only a yield sign, that cars yielded 41% of the time, but if there was a flashing led sign that there was 78% compliance when they allowed them to be able to come back in.

I think drivers are intuitively seeing that and kind of aware because we are familiar with yield signs on the streets right of way and how to be able to respond to those. And so there is sort of a natural response instead of confusion. But it doesn't mean they have to.

It's not a law that says they have to yield. It is. That's great. I hope you yield. Seems to be some. You know, it's not often that we always get some nice actions as opposed to road rage on the road, but people seem to be getting along.

So it's a get along thing. Okay. Thank you.

It's helpful. It's everyone stating their intent of what I'd like to do, and the bus would like to re enter traffic.

Thank you. Anybody else want a question? The author? The witness? I'm seeing none. Senator Archuleta said he would make the motion. Make the motion. And before we take up the motion, we'll allow the author to call close.

Just note, you know, I think we're always trying to figure out ways cost effectively, to be able to improve the efficiency, effectiveness of our transit operations. We do want to get people who are choosing to ride transit or need to ride transit from point a to point b a little bit more effectively and faster.

And this is one way that we're able to do that, or at least authorize and allow a local agency the right to be able to have that under our state statute. I respectfully request your aye vote.

All right. Thank you, Assembly Member. With that, we do have a motion, and we'll ask the assistant to call the roll, please.

This is file item number five, AB 1904. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

All right, the vote is six to three. We'll leave the Bill on call for absent Members. Thank you very much. We are going to move to file item two, AB 1778, which is Assembly Member Connolly's bill. And we'll ask him to come forward. If you're ready to present, you can get started at any time, Assembly Member. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. And I'll be joined by a couple of witnesses as well. Good afternoon. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this Bill. I will be accepting Committee amendments.

AB 1778 would authorize Marin County and its towns to establish a voluntary pilot program prohibiting individuals under the age of 16 from operating Class 2 electric bicycles. If an ordinance or resolution is passed, the county must submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028, that includes traffic stop and citation data.

Class 2 e-bikes can be operated with the handlebar throttle alone and do not require pedal assist. With a simple thumb push on a handle, a Class 2 e-bike can go from zero to 20 miles an hour in just about 10 seconds.

While Cass 2 e-bikes are regulated to go no more than 20 mph, too often they are modified by users to go higher speeds. Ensuring that youth are safe while riding e-bikes has been a high priority of the medical community.

Physicians have reported that injuries of individuals involved in e-bike crashes are not just what we would associate normally with bikes, i.e. scraped knees and bruised elbows, but rather the kinds of injuries you would expect to see in crashes involving higher-speed vehicles, such as internal bleeding, pelvic fractures, damage to vital organs, and brain trauma.

Recognizing this, last month the Marin County Grand Jury announced their decision to support creating an age limit of 16 to operate Class 2 e-bikes and that all Class 2 e-bike riders should be required to wear a helmet. Both provisions are included in this bill.

AB 1778 is narrowly tailored to address potential hazards associated with these bicycles in our communities. We believe that setting an age limit for operators and collecting more data on this issue will significantly reduce crashes and help ensure that our streets remain safe for everyone.

Our priority is to strike a balance between encouraging the use of sustainable transportation and ensuring the safety of our community members, particularly our young riders.

So, I will now pass it off to my witnesses, Doctor John Maa, on behalf of the American College of Surgeons, and Amelia Stafford, student at Terra Linda High School in San Rafael, which is part of my district. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Cortese, Members of the Senate Transportation Committee, I was the 2013 President of the Northern California Chapter of the American College of Surgeons. We've been joined by the Southern California Chapter as well as San Diego as the sponsor of this legislation.

I also served as the 2018 President of the San Francisco Marine Medical Society and also a Member of the California Medical Association who have both endorsed this important legislation. Surgeons statewide have gathered data regarding the hazards of e-bikes resulting in serious disability and death.

This February, UCSF researchers reported a dramatic 49-fold increase in head injuries related to e-bike accidents nationally over the past five years. In Marin, our research has shown that e-bike riders have a significantly greater risk of death compared to pedal cyclists.

I'm honored to yield the remainder of my time to Miss Amelia Stafford, who has traveled from San Rafael today with her family to share her important story, which was the inspiration for Assembly Bill 1778.

The California chapters of the American College of Surgeons applaud her courage to share her story publicly and urge the Committee to vote aye today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and Members of the Senate Transportation Committee. My name is Amelia Stafford, and I am a 15-year-old high school sophomore here to share my personal experience.

First, I want to express my gratitude to Doctor Maa and all the surgeons and healthcare professionals at Marin General Children's Hospital Oakland, UCSF Mission Bay, Kaiser Vallejo, and Kaiser Oakland. Five teams at five hospitals who saved my life. Their expertise and care are the only reasons I am able to stand before you today.

My accident shows how devastating a fall from a Class 2 e-bike can be, but mine was just one of many. I am here on behalf of victims who can't be here to tell their stories. Imagine an ordinary Saturday night in a safe neighborhood.

A group of teens casually taking turns on a new e-bike for the first time. Familiar surroundings can lead to a false sense of security. They might not be wearing helmets, even if they normally do when going to and from school. To a teenager, these bikes seem like normal bikes. 20 mph doesn't faze us.

It doesn't sound fast or dangerous, but the reality is far different. Falls from e-bikes are not like falls from normal bikes. They are far more comparable to violent falls from motorcycles. I don't remember anything from my accident or from the first two months I spent in ICUs all around the Bay Area.

Although I don't remember, I know my family and friends had doubts I'd ever be back to normal, lift a finger, or even survive. During this time, I underwent three brain surgeries. The first saved my life by relieving extreme bleeding and swelling through the removal of a large section of my skull.

The second and third surgeries saved my life from infections. Finally, after 171 days, a fourth and final surgery restored my skull. Now, nine months later, I am beginning to make up for all the lost time. Even with some of the best medical care in the world, I am still incredibly lucky.

If the same injury had occurred on the left side of my brain instead of the right, I'm told I wouldn't be able to give this statement here today. To my first responders, doctors, nurses, therapists, family, and friends, I thank you.

Because of you, I am here, and because of what I have learned, I am here to speak out, to protect teenagers like me. I thank Assembly Member Connolly for raising awareness about this issue. I urge this Committee to vote yes on AB 1778. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much for stepping forward to give that testimony. We're going to ask if there's anyone else in the committee room who wishes to express a support position for this Bill.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Dylan Elliott on behalf of Marin County, proud co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Kyra Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members in strong support of the Bill.

Thank you. Is there a lead opposition witness on this Bill? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, is there anyone in the committee room who wishes to express an opposed position to the Bill? Seeing no one come forward, we're going to come back to the Committee for comments to Senator Dodd.

Yeah, I'd like to thank Senator, Assembly Member Connolly for bringing this Bill. And I want to thank you very much, everybody there, but particularly you, for your testimony today. This really seems like something that's so straightforward, something that we need to do.

And I particularly like the way you've crafted penalties and just kind of like the last Bill notwithstanding. Maybe that's part of the staff work done here today, but I think this is a great step forward and thank you. I'll be voting for it today.

Anyone else on the Committee? Yes, Senator. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. These e-bikes have created a lot of concern for a lot of people, and there's an accumulation of some laws that we've changed in the last few years that have made the propensity to get injured even worse. The riding on sidewalks, blasting through intersections without stopping.

All of these combined with the advent of e-bikes that go a lot faster than kids are normally used to being able to pedal. And frankly, if the parents are thinking that that's just a regular bike that's easier to pedal, it's not. It's a little motorcycle is what it is. And so that's a great concern.

Last year, when we were grappling with some of these bills, we had asked that they do a study to try to get a handle on what should be done to do that. And it seems like we're getting a little bit ahead of that. And I'm anxious to see what this, you know, this study is.

They say it's going to take another two years, and it'll be in 2026. We'll get the results of this Mineta study to help us grapple with the new realities of there's e-bikes out there.

And I'm hoping at that time we'll be able to craft a complete policy that will address some of the laws that we've already passed that I think are absurd and also be able to protect people's rights to enjoy some of the things that they go out and enjoy.

Like if you're going out on an e-bike with your family, mom and dad and the kids are on vacation doing e-biking. I don't know that that should be banned. And that concerns me.

Is there a carve-out so that people can do that as a family, or are mom and dad going to get a ticket for letting their kids ride with them on a vacation?

Thank you, Senator. So, remember, this is very narrowly tailored. We're only talking about Class 2 e-bikes. So, the, shall we say, more traditional pedal-assist e-bike, which is Class 1, also, up to 20 miles an hour is not covered by this bill.

So, certainly, under this bill at least, youth of any age would still be enabled to do that.

Right. And any bikes, anything with two wheels that a kid under 18 is riding, they have to have a helmet, correct?

Correct.

Okay. So, there's, the helmet law extends to this automatically, and we don't need a law.

Where this would be different is helmets would be required for all Class 2 e-bike riders in Marin County.

For adults as well?

Correct.

Right. So, and currently it's Class 3 and above for everybody.

Yes.

Because Class 3 is considered a moped, basically.

Class 3, there's currently a helmet law and actually a 16-year-old age limit as well. So those are the e-bikes that can go up to 28 miles an hour.

So, this is basically taking a Class 2, adding the, or Class 3, adding the Class 2 to it in regards to 16-year-olds and under.

That's a basic way of looking at it. Yes.

I'm a little torn between the rights of people to enjoy the things that we're developing out there. But at the same time, the injuries as this young lady has attested to of, you know, what can happen out there.

And we certainly endorse.

And as a first responder, that's pretty, you know, that's something that I take very seriously.

Absolutely. And as you pointed out, there is a statewide study per Senator Min's bill that's happening through the Mineta Institute. And we all are, of course, looking forward to seeing the results of that as well. We felt, at least on a pilot basis, though, the evidence is sufficient.

And the type of injuries we're seeing serious enough that it makes sense to go forward with this.

So, it's just a pilot in Marin County?

Correct.

Thank you.

Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I ride a bike myself for exercise and have for quite a few years, and I've taken two over that time period, two pretty serious spills. And if I wasn't wearing a helmet, I think I wouldn't be here right now. So, I suspect you were not wearing a helmet.

You probably won't do that again. That's an unfortunate way to learn that lesson. But I don't question requiring helmets for kids. I do a little bit for adults. I think I should have the right to ride a bike without a helmet if I want to be that stupid. I wouldn't.

But since this, if I understood what you said before in the Class 3, helmets are required for everybody, like a motorcycle? Yeah. So, it would be interesting.

It'll be interesting to see if this bill passes over this period of time, what the experience is with regard to head injuries prior to the passage of this bill and after the passage. The one concern I have about the statistics that the doctor cited is you're talking about a period during which e-bikes have just been evolving.

So, you would expect to see the percentage of accidents increase because, you know, 6, 8 years ago, there weren't e-bikes. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens with regard to that for adults with Class 2 e-bikes.

But I will support this because it is, I think, important to treat underage kids with the Class 2 the same as we do with the Class 3.

All right. Thank you. Seeing no other requests. Senator Archuleta, did you want to make a motion on this?

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion, but also, I've got. I'm assuming this is your mother, right? And as here, we've got parents with kids that are very young, and we've got parents with kids that are already in college and married, and we've got the whole gamut here.

But to sit there and have your child next to you, knowing the suffering that you and your family and everyone have done month after month, and to be here, what an inspiration you are. But thank God your daughter is fine. She's here. And what a great presentation.

And I think you need now to get to the school boards and just spread the word because I know everyone here is impressed, and I know if we were school board members, we would be impressed. And just got to let the State of California know what the dangers are out there.

So, the motion is there, and I will support the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. So, Senator Archuleta has put a motion on the table, and we thank him for his comments. Again, we thank the witnesses very much and family for being here and we'll turn to the author to close at this point.

Thank you. Appreciate the conversation. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, the motion is by Senator Archuleta, and we'll ask the assistant to call the roll at this time.

This is file item number two. AB 1778. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll call]

All right, the vote is 12 to zero. We'll leave it on call here for a bit for absent Members. And we thank you again very much Assembly Member and to the witnesses and family. Thank you for being here. We will go to the consent calendar. For the consent calendar at this time, we have 11 measures proposed for consent today.

I'm going to ask the assistant to read off the consent items, and then we can entertain a motion.

This is the consent calendar, including AB 1774, AB 1953, ACR 158, AB 1924, AB 2111, AB 2261, AB 2536, AB 2634, AB 2812, ACR 124, SCR 143.

All right. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Moved by Senator Umberg. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Yeah. You're okay. We got to lift the call. Good work. All right, consent calendar is out on the 12-0 vote. I'm going to note that Senators Dahle and Blakespear are not coming back. And therefore, the previous item, AB 1778 Connolly, is also out on a 12 to zero vote, with the other two Members not returning to vote today.

And we will lift the call on item five at this time.

This is file item number five, AB 1904. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll call] nine to three out.

That final vote is nine to three. Again, with two Members absent and not returning, that Bill is out. Thank you very much, everyone. That concludes our proceedings for today.

We appreciate again all the work by the Committee staff who did a yeoman's job of not only dealing with analysis and amendments and so forth, but getting us an agenda today that was very workable. Thank you very much for that. And we'll see everyone at the next Senate Transportation Committee meeting. We're adjourned.