|
Fw: Alameda Co Bicycle Event Ordinance -
|
CMarti-@cse-insurance.com
|
Oct 08, 2007 08:04 PDT
|
----- Forwarded by Craig Martinelli/Cse Insurance on 10/08/2007 08:03 AM
-----
"Michael Graff" <michael-@pobox.com>
Sent by: michael-@gmail.com
10/07/2007 07:54 PM
To: robert-@ebbc.org
cc: "Mark Abrahams" <dm-@abriz.net>, "Jeffrey Kurtock"
<JKur-@sbcglobal.net>, boa-@grizz.org, nikk-@sbcglobal.net, "Donald
Worn" <donw-@hotmail.com>, "Alan Forkosh" <afor-@mac.com>, "Melarie
Johnson" <mela-@sbcglobal.net>, "JAZ Zaitlin" <ja-@lmi.net>, "Phil
Morton" <pmor-@lmi.net>, "Dave Campbell" <dcam-@lmi.net>, "Steve
Yoder" <ste-@zlcsoftware.com>, "Lucy Gigli" <lu-@bikealameda.org>, "Jon
Spangler" <hudsons-@earthlink.net>, "Ron & Kathy Starkey"
<adm-@exocet.com>, "Al Joseph (OYJ)" <mlajo-@aol.com>,
leodu-@sbcglobal.net, "Jeff Edmonston (BTCEB)" <rkt88-@hotmail.com>,
"Marcia Seeger (Valley Spokesmen)" <vsne-@aol.com>, "Quack Cyclists"
<JS1-@att.com>, "Sally Wilson (Fremont Freewheelers)"
<wils-@comcast.net>, "Ed Tanaka" <Flyfi-@comcast.net>, "Craig
Martinelli (Diablo Cyclists)" <CMarti-@cse-insurance.com>, "Scott
Halversen" <syh_-@pacbell.net>, "Bonnie Powers"
<b-bpo-@worldnet.att.net>, "Alfonso Estrada" <alfo-@eshutter.com>
Subject: Re: Alameda Co Bicycle Event Ordinance -
Hi Robert, thanks for the update.
There's a fundamental flaw in the county's logic. Cyclists operating
as drivers of vehicles (CVC 21200) cannot logically be a procession or
assemblage (21100(a)). Those two sections of the vehicle code are
mutually exclusive.
Under CVC 21, local governments cannot enact or enforce ordinances on
matters covered in the CVC, unless expressly authorized.
CVC 21100(a) expressly authorizes local governments to regulate
processions and assemblages. The intent of that section is to
regulate special events that, by their very nature, do not conform to
the vehicle code.
There is no similar section that authorizes local governments to
regulate cycling on non-freeway roads that are open to the traveling
public.
Therefore, the proposed ordinance can only apply to events (cycling or
otherwise) where the participants are not acting as drivers, such as
in a parade, or in a race, or a similar event.
In fact, the county already has such an ordinance:
[http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/alamedagen/_DATA/TITLE12/Chapter_12_12_PARADES.html]
There's no reason to create a separate "procession or assemblage"
ordinance for bike races on closed roads, with more stringent
requirements than the existing ordinance that applies to events in
general. Such discrimination is fundamentally unfair.
There's also a fundamental point that cyclists don't "significantly
affect traffic" because cyclists ARE traffic (CVC 21200). And
cyclists following the CVC don't "create a safety problem" because the
CVC, by definition, produces safe driver movements. Under CVC 21, the
county has no jurisdiction on these points.
So as long as ride participants are riding in compliance with the
vehicle code, the county has no jurisdiction to regulate such rides.
On 10/6/07, Robert Raburn <robert-@ebbc.org> wrote:
| | Dear Club Leaders:
Following a Friday afternoon meeting of club leaders with
|
representatives from the Sheriff's office, County Counsel and Supervisor
Haggerty's aide, revisions are being made to the draft ordinance and there
will not be a vote next Tuesday morning, rather that will be at some later
date. I repeat, NO HEARING WILL OCCUR ON TUES. OCT. 9.
| |
We can't be certain until we receive a revised draft of the ordinance,
|
but organized training rides should not have to apply for a permit. Rather
than define "bicycle events" as "one or more of the following [3]
conditions (publicized event, registration fee, route on unincorporated
rural road)," we agreed to make all the conditions necessary for a ride to
be regarded as a bicycle event (See: 10.25.010).
| |
Large organized rides (what could be considered to be invitational rides
|
with a fee) would be required to acquire a permit and would need to follow
all the provisions of the ordinance. No progress was made on increasing
the arbitrary 50-rider threshold to reflect a value we might all agree is
"large."
| |
Other unresolved issues include the requirement that ALL rides of over
|
50 bicyclists have an insurer provide the County with a costly additional
insured endorsement page (Section 10.25.030(B)14). As well, there remain
questions regarding how the signage component of the notification
conditions in Section 10.25.040(D) would be conducted with Public Works
and the possible costs over the minimum $150 sign fee (in addition to the
permit fee).
| |
Please review the revised draft of the ordinance with your clubs as soon
|
as it is made available from your Supervisor http://www.acgov.org/. The
brief respite may indeed be very brief! I urge your club officers to get
engaged right away and respond to the BOS before the item is slated on the
BOS Agenda.
| |
-Robert Raburn, Executive Director
********************************************
East Bay Bicycle Coalition www.ebbc.org
PO Box 1736 tel:(510)530-3444
Oakland, CA 94604 fax:(510)336-1604
info msg:(510)433-RIDE (7433)
********************************************
"To promote bicycling as an everyday means
of transportation and recreation"
|
|
|
 |
|
