Showing posts with label codes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label codes. Show all posts

December 28, 2022

Class three (3) e bikes in CA now must be specifically prohibited on an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.

I am not sure why or who (outside the legislature) initiated this California bill in Feb. 2022. The purpose is to allow class 3 bikes anywhere a class 1 or 2 bike is allowed by default. Unless of course the city or the county (or some other CA state local jurisdiction) disallow class 1, 2 or 3 bikes on some specific path or area under their control. I think the intent here here is that the Legislature assumed that most local entities wont take any action on this unless there is a real problem locally.  Like Del Mar CA as an example. I do not think allowing class 3 on class 1 bike paths (and other places) was the intent of the original model legislation passed around by People for Bikes. This also raises more issues with respect to class 3 classification jurisdiction as has been raised by the US Consumer Product Protection Agency (CPSC) lately. FYI the reference to "motorized bicycle" below in pink means basically a moped like device that does not go over 30 mph. See details here (CCV sec 406)   So the legislature at least smartly preserved that exception. However I don't see much difference between a moped and class 3 devices functionally or speed wise and quite frankly the ebikes on the class 1 bikeways I see now likely do not even meet CA class 3 requirements. I really DON'T think class 3 ebikes are appropriate on Class 1 bikeways (those completely separate and not near roads) but quite frankly nothing has been done to enforce or even post the existing law on most class 1 bike paths in CA to date so I don't see this as having much of an effect.

[ Approved by CA Governor September 16, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 16, 2022. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

[swh note: I have left in the red and blue original editing in the bill markups]

AB 1909, as amended, Friedman. Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill.
Existing law generally regulates the operation of bicycles upon a highway. A violation of these provisions, generally, is punishable as an infraction.
(1) Existing law prohibits the operation of a motorized bicycle or a class 3 electric bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local authority to additionally prohibit the operation of class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities.
This bill would remove the prohibition of class 3 electric bicycles on these facilities and would remove the authority of a local jurisdiction to prohibit class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. The bill would instead authorize a local authority to prohibit the operation of a class 3 any electric bicycle at a motor-assisted speed greater than 20 miles per hour. or any class of electric bicycle on an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.

SECTION 1.

 Section 21207.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

21207.5.
 (a) Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other law, a motorized bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, by ordinance, that operation.
(b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on that trail.
(c) The Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or trail within the department’s jurisdiction.




Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 Conditions of Use

August 12, 2020

California Bill alert; AB-1286 Shared mobility devices: agreements (2019-2020) (AB 371 2022)

UPDATE 6/21/22. This bill was renumbered to AB 371 and CAL Bike does not like the insurance requirements. Quite a few provisions have been added since 2020 version below. Here is the calbike campaign and the link to the current version of the bill. Act now in contacting your CA legislator as votes can happen very quickly without warning.

UPDATE 9/2/20. So the legislative year is over in CA as of 8/31/20...whew...The final bill language is set forth below as of 9/2/20. They still did not clean up the issue below in my 8/27/20 update. If the bill is signed by Gov. Newsom it looks like it would take effect January 1, 2021.

UPDATE 8/27/20:

It appears that the mobility industry and or others in the industry were able to remove all the provisions in the bill relating to releases. However in my opinion the definition of a  “Shared mobility device” and a  “Shared mobility device provider” is still too vague which then leads to a problem with this remaining provision "(b) Before distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. "Distribution" is way too vague and again this could apply to very small rental operations that cannot afford such high insurance limits.

ORIGINAL 8/12/20 POST:

Once again someone in the California legislature got whiff of a bad idea and decided to run with it. Just like the AB 5 bill last year regarding independent contractors and the resulting unwinding of Uber in CA., now we have a "shared mobility bill" that attempts to "fix" a few issues in that sector but does it in a very heavy handed way. 

The first problem is the definition of a "shared mobility device". (ellipses eliminates unneeded verbiage) "Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board.... motorized scooter ... electric bicycle... [human powered] bicycle..., or other similar personal transportation device, .... that is made available to the public..". It gets worse.

“Shared mobility service provider”... means a person or entity that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for financial compensation..."

So if one person wanted to rent a bike to someone, this law applies to that person renting a bike. Rather overbroad and too all inclusive. Poorly drafted in my opinion. There should be some revenue size threshold added to this definition.

Now for the good part, if you rent one of these devices (regardless of the size of your business or the amount of revenue to you earn) you have to purchase a policy from a California admitted insurer (might be tough from what I know of this insurance market) and the limits have to be 1 million per claim and 5 million dollars in the aggregate. In some respects that is more than Walmart suppliers have to procure to sell to Walmart.

But there is more. The "agreement between the provider and a user shall not contain a provision by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreement.". So even though California statutory law and case law allows for such waivers and releases in the recreational sports context, this legislator knows better and is going to go against established law. Such releases are not allowed in a product liability case to begin with. All this does is expose the companies renting (not product manufacturers or distributors) to MORE liability and make it harder for them to extricate themselves from litigation. Also the insurance market has "priced in" those waivers and without them insurance costs will likely rise in this sector. Legislators should think very long and hard before tinkering with existing liability laws and precedent. The law of unintended consequences makes things hard to fix once a new law is unleashed.

It goes on to provide that "A city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use and maintenance of shared mobility devices..."

Quite frankly I trust the mobility companies to come up with better rules for operation than any government entity. Trust me I have seen this play out before. Government entities are not very adept at this especially considering the hundreds of different devices out there.

It is worth noting that this bill is co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) (which is a large association of attorneys that represents plaintiff's) and the League of California Cities (which is a group that generally advocates for cities) It is supported by the Environmental Defense Fund and a number of consumer protection groups. It is opposed by a number of shared mobility service providers, TechNet, and the Civil Justice Association of California.

The senate Judiciary Committee Analysis is as follows (in part)

Required prohibition on waiver of rights and remedies

Pursuant to the bill, the agreement and permit must also prohibit provisions in shared mobility provider agreements between providers and users by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreement. Writing in opposition, were a coalition of groups, including a number of providers such as Bird and Lime.

What is interesting is that the committee responded to their opposition with:

"It is true that such waivers are generally permitted and widely used, but are subject to certain limitations and requirements laid out in statute and case law. Civil Code Section 1668 provides:All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.Relevant judicial precedent further requires that waivers must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties, as well as comprehensible in each of its essential details. (Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica(2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356; Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc.(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715, 1731."

So even after acknowledging years of case law out there to protect consumer from onerous releases or waivers the Legislature still felt it was appropriate and ban outright the use of waivers and in a very broad fashion (not just for electric devices) or limiting the ban to large providers.

The plaintiff attorneys association responded (some what inaccurately) that:

"The opposition argues that such agreements are common. However, (1) [releases] being common does not make them right and (2) they are different from other rental agreements/operators. The companies manufacture (Editor: that is not true in all circumstances) and place e-scooters into the stream of commerce and are more akin to a product manufacturer and/or retailer and less like an innocent rental agency with no control over the product. Also, the manufacturers have the exclusive control to fix/maintain the scooters. (Editor: this is is also not always accurate) When a driver rents a vehicle, he or she is not required to waive the liability of car defects; neither should a scooter rider."

The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) responded that "The scooter manufacturer has no way of exerting control over the scooter rider and does not deserve full legal responsibility for accidents that may occur as a result of a rider’s behavior." The Legislative analyst responded that "assumption of risk" can still be asserted but I would point out if the defendant is in fact a product manufacturer or in the stream of distribution "assumption of risk" is not available as a defense in a pure product liability case.

If you want to see the full bill analysis click here. It is worth a read.

The entire bill as it exists today is set forth below. This bill was last amended in June of 2019 and it is just now coming up for a hearing with the CA Senate Judiciary Committee on August 18, 2020. Don't ask why. It passed out of committee on 8/19/20 and is now set for a 'third reading". This is part of the problem with the CA legislature. Surprise hearings on dormant bills months down the road. Maybe that's planned. August 31 is the last day to pass the bill.

The committee can be reached at:
State Capitol
Room 2187
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4113
Fax: (916) 403-7394
Email: sjud.fax@sen.ca.gov

The bill author can be reached here.

FINAL LANGUAGE OF BILL AWAITING SIGNATURE BY GOV. NEWSOM LIKELY WITHIN 30 DAYS:

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:

TITLE 10.1. Shared Mobility Devices

2505.
 (a) For purposes of this title:
(1) “Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board as defined in Section 313.5 of the Vehicle Code, motorized scooter as defined in Section 407.5 of the Vehicle Code, electric bicycle as defined in Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code, bicycle as defined in Section 231 of the Vehicle Code, or other similar personal transportation device, except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 415 of the Vehicle Code, that is made available to the public by a shared mobility service provider for shared use and transportation in exchange for financial compensation via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.
(2) “Shared mobility service provider” or “provider” means a person or entity that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for financial compensation or membership via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.
(b) Before distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The agreement or permit shall, at a minimum, require that the shared mobility service provider maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage with a carrier doing business in California, with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for bodily injury or property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, and product liability and completed operations, and not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate for all occurrences during the policy period. The insurance shall not exclude coverage for injuries or damages caused by the shared mobility service provider to the shared mobility device user.
(c) (1) A city or county that authorizes a provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2021, shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, and maintenance of shared mobility devices before a provider may offer any shared mobility device for rent or use in the city or county by any of the following:
(A) Ordinance.
(B) Agreement.
(C) Permit terms.
(2) A city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2021, and continues to provide that authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, and maintenance of shared mobility devices by January 1, 2022, by any of the following:
(A) Ordinance.
(B) Agreement.
(C) Permit terms.
(3) A provider shall comply with all applicable rules, agreements, and permit terms established pursuant to this subdivision.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city or county from adopting any ordinance or regulation that is not inconsistent with this title.

SEC. 2.

 The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

 

OLDER VERSION OF THE BILL BELOW:

Introduced by Assembly Member Muratsuchi

February 21, 2019


An act to add Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, relating to mobility devices.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 1286, as amended, Muratsuchi. Shared mobility devices: agreements.
Existing law regulates contracts for particular transactions, including those in which one person agrees to give to another person the temporary possession and use of personal property, other than money for reward, and the latter agrees to return the property to the former at a future time.
This bill would require a shared mobility service provider, as defined, to enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The bill would require that the provider maintain a specified amount of commercial general liability insurance and would prohibit the provider from including specified provisions in a user agreement before distributing a shared mobility device within that jurisdiction. The bill would define shared mobility device to mean an electrically motorized board, motorized scooter, electric bicycle, bicycle, or other similar personal transportation device, except as provided.
This bill would require a city or county that authorizes a shared mobility device provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2020, to adopt operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules and maintenance rules, as provided, regarding the use of the shared mobility devices in its jurisdiction before the provider may offer shared mobility devices for rent or use. The bill would require a city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that authorization to adopt those operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules and maintenance rules, as provided, by January 1, 2021.
Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: NO   Local Program: NO  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:

TITLE 10.1. Shared Mobility Devices

2505.
 (a) For purposes of this title:
(1) “Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board as defined in Section 313.5 of the Vehicle Code, motorized scooter as defined in Section 407.5 of the Vehicle Code, electric bicycle as defined in Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code, bicycle as defined in Section 231 of the Vehicle Code, or other similar personal transportation device, except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 415 of the Vehicle Code, that is made available to the public by a shared mobility service provider for shared use and transportation in exchange for financial compensation via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.
(2) “Shared mobility service provider” or “provider” means a person or entity that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for financial compensation or membership via a digital application or other electronic or digital platform.
(b) Before distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The agreement or permit shall, at a minimum, require that the provider comply with both of the following requirements:
(1) Requires Require that the shared mobility service provider to maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage with a carrier doing business in California, with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for bodily injury or property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, and product liability and completed operations, and not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate for all occurrences during the policy period. The insurance shall not exclude coverage for injuries or damages caused by the shared mobility service provider to the shared mobility device user.
(2) The shared mobility provider agreement between the provider and a user shall not contain a provision by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreement.
(c) (1) A city or county that authorizes a provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2020, shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use and maintenance of shared mobility devices before a provider may offer any shared mobility device for rent or use in the city or county. county by any of the following:
(A) Ordinance.
(B) Agreement.
(C) Permit terms.
(2) A city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use and maintenance of shared mobility devices by January 1, 2021. 2021, by any of the following:
(A) Ordinance.
(B) Agreement.
(C) Permit terms.
(3) A provider shall comply with all operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules applicable rules, agreements, and permit terms established pursuant to this subdivision.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city or county from adopting any ordinance or regulation that is not inconsistent with this title.

SEC. 2.

 The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
 

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 Conditions of Use

December 29, 2016

List of California legislation (bills) that became Law in 2016

We recently became curious as to the comprehensive list of legislation signed and vetoed in California in any given year. We then set out to find a comprehensive list not limited to any particular subject matter (or just the "popular bills" the media liked) and low and behold we could not find one (at least available to the public). Governor Browns office also does not issue a comprehensive yearly list but rather issues many press releases throughout the year listing all the bills signed or vetoed on a particular day. Most of these press releases contain many bills. Some only a few. 

In 2016 the Legislature sent Governor Brown 1,059 pieces of legislation, 898 of which the governor signed into law. He vetoed 159 and two become law without signing. We show 5,103 bills were introduced in the State Legislature. Only 20.75% of the bills made it to the Governor's desk and only a mere 17.6% were signed and became law. If we assume each bill is an average of 7 pages long (and some are much longer) that would be about 6,300 pages of new laws! Happy reading! Some of these are real gems.....only became possible through the hard work of lobbyists and special interests! Quite frankly I'm pretty impressed with our 78 year old Governor's ability to wade thru this mess. Having a full time state legislature (unlike most states) is quite frankly both a blessing and a curse.

Now keep in mind that this list is only "legislation" signed or vetoed in 2016. It does NOT include changes in the California administrative code (non legislative) and related "codes" passed by State agencies. Nor does it include voter initiatives passed in 2016. Nor does it include cases decided by the various appellate level courts in California that can greatly affect how a given law is interpreted or enforced, or create all new obligations in and of themselves ("Judicial law" or precedent). This also does not include local laws or ordinances passed by various California counties (58) or other municipalities (482) or other governmental entities. Finally this list only includes laws passed or vetoed in 2016. Some of these take effect January 1, 2017 (typically) but many may not take effect until later or some even earlier (rare). Also keep in mind there are laws passed in 2014-2015 that may just now be taking effect in 2017.

There really is something in this 37 page list for everyone. We were not able to put it in chronological order due to the fact that it was hard enough to avoid duplication with the many press releases that came out in a 12 month period. The order signed is also really not important. What is important is the date the law becomes effective, which can vary for each piece of legislation. The veto and signing statements are hyperlinked in the list but the legislation passed/signed is not. The fastest way to look it up is by typing in the bill number here and making sure you have the right year (2016). Let us know if you see any duplicative entries or if you think we have missed something. The last date anything was signed or vetoed was September 30, 2016 and we are not aware of anything still pending on the Governors desk as of this writing.

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2016 Conditions of Use