Newsom vetoes bills to decriminalize jaywalking, allow cyclists to avoid stops
In a veto message, Newsom agreed that the state must address how unequal enforcement of jaywalking laws, and other minor violations, are used "as a pretext to stop people of color." But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because California has a high...
“The approach in AB 122 may be especially concerning for children, who may not know how to judge vehicle speeds or exercise the necessary caution to yield to traffic when appropriate,” Newsom wrote.
Maybe this is just me, but if I’m in a car and I see kids I’m always going to yield to them. Nowhere that I’m going is more important than a child’s safety.
If you read the reason for the vetoes, it’s coming from a very car-centric way of thinking. The stop sign thing, for example, the 88 percent figure cited is highly biased already as cops make the determination on site so if there’s a 50/50 call, it’s almost always pinned on the bicyclists. The problem is prioritizing cars in those situations, since the outcome is highly uneven.
Does anyone actually think that stopping this bill is really making the road any more or less safe? It's seems like it's just formalizing what is already common practice anyway.
And It's not like the bill was going to give cyclist a card blanche to just do whatever they want either. it literally just said that once you yield and verify there is no conflicting traffic, you can proceed when safe without the need for a full stop. Why does the word yield always gets interpreted as barreling recklessly through the intersection when in reality it means the exact opposite of that (waiting for users already in the intersection). It's completely unreasonable to make someone come to a full foot down stop almost every block if there's literally no one around at the intersection.
Treating bicycles exactly like cars is completely unnuanced and inappropriate. I can't believe our law isn't capable of envisioning anything better than the bare minimum.
So both bills would have only had an affect when there were 'no cars present'
decriminalized jaywalking throughout the state when no cars are present
and for bikes:
cyclists could have made so-called Idaho stops at stop-sign intersections ... if there’s no other traffic
While these may have been good measures if followed as intended I feel like they would have been interpreted similarly to how the headline reads (ignoring the part about cars being present).
The jaywalking bill was intended to address that law enforcement uses that law to arbitrarily stop people of color. Why we can't make a bill like: if stopped for jaywalking the charges brought have to only be about jaywalking is beyond me.
The bike one appears less conclusive as for the reasoning and effect. Both the pro and against state that they want to reduce biking crashes. 10 other states have a similar measure but that means that 39 do not. More research is probably needed. I am also just kind of confused; a stop turns into a yield when there are no cars, but the bike would have to verify that there are no cars for this to happen, thus they would have to stop anyway?
San Francisco plans to buy four properties to house the homeless across the city
Data exposes racial inequities in Bay Area housing market
Showdown Looms Between SF Board of Supervisors and Sunset Residents Angrily Opposed to Affordable Housing