The deeper problem, for bicycles and pedestrians in the U.S., is industry-wide practices that exclude bicycles and pedestrians. So, an engineer "considers" bikes and pedestrians - they consider them to be deleterious to "traffic", and thus a negative impact to the quality of life in an area.

What needs to be done?

(1) Sue for enforcement of "consideration"
(2) Lobby for better measurements of the roadway.

I'll expand on point number 2. In L.A. the General Plan calls for the following SPECIFIC, INDUSTRY-WIDE, STANDARDS to measure the performance of the roadway:
-Level Of Service (LOS)
-Average Daily Trips (ADT)
-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
-Mobility (distance a driver can travel in set periods of time)

These are all exclusively car-only measurements. The general plan has a one-liner tucked away somewhere about "considering bike safety" or "considering pedestrians" - but there are no standards that can be applied by a professional engineer.

We need better standards for roadway performance!

Here is what I would use (in certain portions of roads):
-Historic retail sales tax data
-Livability surveys
-Street user counts compared to census data
-Noise measurement
-Air quality measurement
-Crash and accident database and monitoring
-Throughput of people (not just cars)

All of these would show that things get measurably better when a road is designed to accommodate people, and not just the throughput of automobiles. They are cheap and easy to implement.

These would be "plug and play" - a local agency should be required to use these sorts of standards as part of their "consideration". Otherwise, we're left with FLUFF LEGISLATION that blunts the impact of our growing cycling and livability advocacy movement.

But there's a Caltrans connection. Caltrans has an internal policy called Deputy Directive 64 that calls for consideration of the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians for state highway projects, including design, construction and maintenance. That policy is being updated and strengthened to more clearly align with Complete Streets principles and could be unveiled in the next few weeks.

In both cases everything depends on implementation. For AB 1358 the Governor's Office of Planning & Research will develop general plan update guidelines that will (ideally) carry out the policy expressed in the bill. And DD-64 is just a statement of policy -- next will come development of specific implementation guidelines. The work is just beginning!

Jim Brown
Communications Director
California Bicycle Coalition

As far as Complete Streets goes, I think this legislation sends a message to statewide and national officials that Complete Streets are important and are a possibility. The frame of Complete Streets is all inclusive, and that works our advantage of creating more livable, bike and pedestrian friendly environments.

It is such a uniform practice in government to exclude anything but car-only projects from heaping piles of general "transportation" funds - I think it would be an easy case to make in court.

Will Bikes Belong wake up and start fighting for their right to hawk bikes in numbers thus far only dreamed of? Will domestic manufacturers realize that rising fuel costs will make domestic bike production and component manufacture viable soon?

Maybe, maybe not.

The LADOT currently "consider" bicyclist and pedestrian safety when deciding whether or not to speed up car traffic - they "consider" it, say it doesn't matter, and speed up car traffic anyway.

How is legislation going to do anything other than satisfy activists? Can I sue a city for not, literally, providing safe accommodation for pedestrians? I just don't see this law doing that.

Here is a sample of California Code that has done what, exactly, for bicyclists:

CALIFORNIA CODES
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
SECTION 885-886

885. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that traffic
congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, public health, energy
shortages, consumer costs, and land-use considerations resulting from
a primary reliance on the automobile for transportation are each
sufficient reasons to provide for multimodal transportation systems.

885.2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) California's bicycle programs have not been fully developed or
funded.
(b) The Legislature and Congress have enacted laws to reduce
traffic congestion and improve air quality.
(c) The components of a successful bicycle program include
engineering and design of safe facilities, education of bicyclists,
and the motoring public on lawful use of the highways, and
enforcement of traffic laws.
(d) Efforts to improve safety and convenience for nonmotorized
transportation users are a proper use of transportation funds.
(e) The design and maintenance of many of our bridges and highways
present physical obstacles to use by bicycles.
(f) The bicycle is a legitimate transportation mode on public
roads and highways.
(g) Bicycle transportation can be an important, low-cost strategy
to reduce reliance on the single-passenger automobile and can
contribute to a reduction in air pollution and traffic congestion.