Comments on: Proposed ordinance threatens San Jose Bike Party

By: Paul Raymond

Paul Raymond — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:58:34 +0000

I attended the meeting of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors on Tuesday June 22, 2010. I spoke on behalf of the SJBPR with a written statement. I am very upset the way Board handle the ordinance discussion. They had long discussions with the authors of the ordinance. There was a lot of statements between them that I thought were distorted and we had not chance to make any rebuttal statements at that moment. We were allowed to make statements and I felt that the Supervisors basically blew us off.

ALSO I AM VERY UPSET THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT AT THIS MEETING FROM SJBPR OR SVBC groups. HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE MORE SUPPORT AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. WE NEED TO JAM THE CHAMBER TO SUPPORT OUR CAUSE.

I believe the county is circumventing the California Vehicle Law stating there is no limit to bicycle traffic on country and using the disguise of stating a special event permit is required to allow a ride.

Also afraid in the end that a permit fee for an SJBPR Special Event will be to high or they will come up with a “baloney” reason not to grant one.

SJPBR committee should schedule a meeting to discuss what course of we can take on this issue. Also please write to the Board of Supervisor members expressing your views on this very important issue. Email addresses below:

don.gage@bos.sccgov.org; George.Shirakawa@bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; liz.kniss@bos.sccgov.org

By: biketurtle

biketurtle — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:51:55 +0000

One more thing. In response to my own question in @15 above, I think I misinterpreted the (confusing) section B3-147(a)(3) of the ordinance. I now think that section B3-147(a)(3) applies only when section B3-147(a) is applicable, which concerns only events that take place on a Road.

So most school events, movies, church services, weddings wouldn’t be affected.

By: biketurtle

biketurtle — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:47:14 +0000

I agree that bicyclists and drivers should be considerate of each other. I’ve never been to that part of the county myself, so I can’t comment on why (or if) bicyclists aren’t using the turnouts. Perhaps someone more familiar with the area can enlighten us.

While I’m sympathetic to the residents in that area, I take issue with anyone who claims that the bicyclists on public roads are using “their” roads. Those roads belong to all of us, not just the people who live nearby.

It is more appropriate to state this in terms of slow moving vehicles, including cars, bicycles or tractors, needing to give way to faster moving vehicles where turnouts are available. That’s considerate and is also required by CVC 21656 when five or more vehicles are backed up behind.

If you are following this issue and were unable to attend the meeting in person, I do recommend taking the time to watch the archived video.

By: Tian

Tian — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:17:25 +0000

I was there listening to the whole hearing. One thing that needs to be said is that those rural people are quite frustrated with bicyclists that won’t let them pass. We can diffuse that by using the turnouts to let cars pass us when we are using their roads and it’s appropriate. Please spread the word to your athletic hill climbing sport biking friends! The message is: “If you’re being tailgated by a car, use the turnouts to let them pass.”

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 04:34:55 +0000

A representative from CHP made, by far, the most disconcerting statements. She didn’t mention Bike Party by name, but alluded to large groups of cyclists riding on a Friday night, breaking traffic laws, and drinking alcohol. She was in favor of this law so it could be used as a tool to help crack down on this type of activity. Now, I don’t know which roads we ride on that fall under CHPs jurisdiction, but I would assume other law enforcement agencies are also on board.

Bike Party was represented. Two riders stood up and made statements on our behalf. I thought I saw the supervisors perk up their ears when the first BP rider spoke. I think we may have been overlooked in the broader discussion. But based on the wide geographic applicability and the statements by the CHP officer, there seems to be a behind-the-scenes effort to sneak something in that could be used to shut Bike Party down.

The residents of the San Antonio Valley have some serious and legitimate complaints that are the main focus of this ordinance Lots of people have been working on this for a long time. There is no chance this ordinance will not be passed in some form. A vote has been postponed until the August meeting to clarify some of the definitions and double check some legal issues with respect to the CA vehicle code. So there is one more chance to influence how this law is written. The SVBC, BPAC, and other groups are working things from their end, but their interests don’t completely overlap with ours. I THINK BIKE PARTY WOULD BE BEST SERVED IF THE LAW WERE LIMITED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE THREE ROADS LEADING INTO THE VALLEY. We don’t ride out there anyway and that gives the valley residents what they want.

Supervisor Gage of district 1 represents the San Antonio Valley area and is fully in favor of the ordinance. Supervisor Cortese of district 3 was the most vocal critic of the present draft but generally supports the idea. The other three supervisors were mostly silent.

Keep up the letter writing!

[moderator/tr: Steve is referring to the San Antonio (San Antone) Valley]

By: LaVics

LaVics — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 04:01:05 +0000

Good job community activist! I was unable to make this one, but I do plan on voicing my opinion in August. Do you know the date? It’d be nice to know in advance to ask for the day off.