Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051226-03.1 KALIN, ALAN - EMAIL 1Danville Town Council Study Session May 10, 2026 Town of Danville Danville, California Subject: Issues, Omissions, and Unanswered Questions - Staff Memorandum 3.1 “E-Bike Safety - Local Ordinance Considerations” Prepared by: Danville Safety Advocates and E-bike Access Mayor and Council Members, We respectfully submit this revised report to address significant issues, omissions, and unanswered questions arising from Staff Memorandum 3.1, “E-Bike Safety - Local Ordinance Considerations,” prepared for the May 12, 2026 Town Council Study Session. Staff Memorandum 3.1 addresses local legal authority, policy options, statewide legislation, education, enforcement concerns, and park-related recommendations. However, it does not meaningfully answer several central findings of the Danville Risk Assessment Sidewalk Operation of Electric Bicycles and High-Powered Electric Motorcycles (February 1, 2026) Particularly as they relate to residential sidewalks, sidewalk width, predictable conflict points, local collision evidence, signage, enforcement practicality, and municipal notice. The most recent local collision data makes this issue more urgent. From January 1, 2025 through April 29, 2026, Danville identified 9 e-bike collisions in approximately 16 months. At least 7 of those 9 recent collisions involved riders age 16 or younger. The recent pattern includes severe injuries and recurring conflict locations near major roads, intersections, trail 2 connections, downtown streets, and neighborhood areas. This recent local evidence raises serious questions about whether continued deferral is an adequate public safety response. The central issue is not whether the Town has any authority over sidewalks. Staff Memorandum 3.1 acknowledges that the Town’s strongest authority includes Town-controlled infrastructure, including sidewalks. The unanswered question is why the Town recommends using that authority in parks, but not on residential sidewalks where the same foreseeable conflicts exist. We respectfully ask the Council to consider the following issues, omissions, unanswered questions, and recommended actions before relying on Staff Memorandum 3.1 as a complete basis for policy decisions. 1. Engineering Unsuitability of Danville Sidewalks The Risk Assessment concluded that Danville’s typical 4- and 5-foot sidewalks are pedestrian facilities and do not meet recognized standards for shared use by pedestrians and faster, heavier motorized devices, including throttle-assisted electric motorcycles commonly called e-motos. Staff Memorandum 3.1 does not provide a competing engineering analysis or identify an engineering standard supporting shared use of typical narrow residential sidewalks by pedestrians and faster electric devices. Questions: • What engineering standard is the Town relying on to justify continued motorized operation on typical 4- and 5-foot residential sidewalks? • If the Town disagrees with the Risk Assessment’s engineering conclusion, where is the Town’s competing engineering analysis? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to prepare and return with an ordinance or resolution prohibiting motorized operation 3 of e-bikes, e-motos, electric scooters, and similar motorized devices on narrow pedestrian sidewalks, unless and until the Town produces a contrary engineering analysis showing such operation can be accommodated safely. . (See video documentation of e-moto operation on sidewalks and park paths) 2. Partial list of California Cities that Prohibit e-bikes on sidewalks: Region / County City / Jurisdiction Scope of Sidewalk Ban Code Citation Contra Costa Danville Prohibited in business district Danville Muni Code §4-19.2 Alameda Berkeley Prohibited on all sidewalks Berkeley Muni Code §14.68.120– 130 Alameda Oakland Prohibited for adult- size bikes/e-bikes Oakland Muni Code §10.16.150 Napa Napa Prohibited near schools/stores/business buildings Napa Muni Code §10.64.020 Solano Vacaville Prohibited near schools/stores/business buildings Vacaville Muni Code §10.52.180 Marin Mill Valley Citywide prohibition Mill Valley Muni Code §10.04.140, §10.30 Contra Costa El Cerrito Citywide prohibition El Cerrito Muni Code §11.64.040(A) San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Citywide prohibition SLO Muni Code §10.72.100 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Prohibited near commercial establishments Santa Cruz Muni Code §10.68.030 Santa Cruz Capitola No e-bikes on sidewalks; kids <10 only Capitola Muni Code §10.44.010– 030 Santa Cruz Watsonville Citywide prohibition Watsonville Muni Code §4-1.02 Monterey Pacific Grove Citywide prohibition PG Muni Code §16.32.080 4 Monterey Gonzales Citywide prohibition Gonzales Muni Code §10.52.130 Sacramento Folsom Citywide prohibition Folsom Muni Code §10.24.070 Riverside San Jacinto Citywide prohibition San Jacinto Muni Code §10.24.120 Santa Barbara Lompoc Citywide prohibition Lompoc Muni Code §10.52.130 3. Collision Mechanics and Predictable Conflict Points The Risk Assessment explained that sidewalk operation increases predictable conflict points at driveways, intersections, ADA ramps, landscaping obstructions, and limited-sight-distance locations. It further explained that riders on sidewalks often approach motorists from angles, speeds, and positions drivers do not expect. Staff Memorandum 3.1 refers generally to pedestrian conflicts and near misses, but it does not analyze these specific crash pathways or explain why those risks are acceptable. Questions: • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not analyze the driveway, intersection, sight-line, and ADA-ramp conflict points identified in the Risk Assessment? • What is the Town’s basis for concluding that these predictable collision pathways do not warrant immediate corrective action? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff and the Police Department to identify and map the most foreseeable sidewalk conflict points, especially driveways, intersections, ADA ramps, and sight -obstructed locations, and bring forward immediate corrective measures for those locations. 4. Recent Danville Collision Data Shows an Active and Growing Local Problem The Risk Assessment relied on Danville-specific collision information and concluded that future conflicts are foreseeable if faster electric devices continue operating in pedestrian spaces. Staff Memorandum 3.1 references some Danville collision information, but it does not fully analyze the most recent local pattern from January 1, 2025 through April 29, 2026. That recent period is especially important. From 2018 through 2024, Danville had 7 identified e- bike collisions over seven years. But from 2025 through April 29, 2026, Danville had already 5 identified 9 collisions in approximately 16 months. In 2025 alone, Danville recorded 6 identified collisions, nearly matching the entire total from the prior seven -year period. By April 29, 2026, Danville had already recorded 3 more identified collisions. The recent age pattern is also significant. From 2025 through April 29, 2026, at least 7 of the 9 recent collisions involved riders age 16 or younger. The reported youth ages include 15, 16, 14, and 12 in 2025, and 14, 16, and 14 in 2026. This shows that the issue increasingly involves middle-school and high-school-age riders, not only adult commuter or recreational e-bike use. The injury pattern shows that these are not merely nuisance incidents or minor falls. Across the identified collision list, 12 of 16 collisions involved some level of reported injury, and 6 involved either fatal or severe injury. During the recent 2025 through April 29, 2026 period, serious injuries continued to occur, including severe injuries involving riders age 69, 16, 12, and 14. The 2026 data is especially concerning because it shows the pattern remains active. Danville had 3 identified e-bike collisions by April 29, 2026, only about one-third of the way through the year. Even without projecting a year-end total, that number shows that the recent collision trend has not stopped. The recent locations also show recurring conflict areas, including major roads, intersections, Iron Horse Trail connections, downtown streets, and neighborhood locations. These include areas such as San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Crow Canyon Road, Hartz Avenu e, Diablo Road, La Gonda Way, Railroad Avenue, and neighborhood street locations. This supports the need for a targeted local review of sidewalks, trail crossings, school routes, downtown streets, neighborhood cut-through routes, park paths, driveways, and intersections. Questions: • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not directly analyze the recent Danville-specific collision pattern from January 1, 2025 through April 29, 2026? • How does staff reconcile its recommendation to defer residential sidewalk action with the fact that Danville identified 9 e-bike collisions in approximately 16 months? • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not address the recent youth pattern showing that at least 7 of the 9 recent collisions involved riders age 16 or younger? • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not address the recent severe-injury pattern involving both older adults and youth riders? • Has the Town evaluated whether the recent collision pattern supports immediate targeted action on Town-controlled sidewalks, park paths, trail crossings, and school routes? • Will staff provide a complete recent collision summary showing date, location, device type, rider age, injury severity, and whether each incident occurred on or near a sidewalk, school, park path, trail crossing, driveway, or intersection? Recommended Council Action: Require staff to prepare a focused Danville-specific collision analysis for the period from 6 January 1, 2025 through April 29, 2026 before the Council relies on Staff Memorandum 3.1’s recommendation to defer residential sidewalk action. The analysis should identify youth-involved collisions, severe injuries, device types, locations, school-route connections, trail crossings, sidewalk proximity, and recurring conflict areas. Staff should then explain whether this recent local evidence supports immediate targeted protections on Town-controlled infrastructure. (Photo: E-Moto sidewalk collision, San Ramon Valley Blvd) 4. Municipal Liability, Notice, and Foreseeability The Risk Assessment expressly analyzed California Government Code sections 830 through 835.4 and concluded that the Town now has foreseeability, notice, and control regarding the risks posed by e-bike and e-moto sidewalk operation. Staff Memorandum 3.1 lists the City Attorney as having reviewed or contributed to the staff memo, but it does not expressly address the Risk Assessment’s liability analysis, nor does it state whether the Town agrees or disagrees with the notice, foreseeability, and dangerous-condition concerns raised. Questions: • Did the Town Attorney specifically evaluate the Government Code sections 830 through 835.4 analysis contained in the Risk Assessment? • Does the Town agree or disagree that it has now been placed on notice of foreseeable risks involving e-bike and e-moto operation on sidewalks and park paths? • What is the Town’s legal basis for deferring action if it has already received detailed notice of these risks? 7 (Photo: E-Moto on the sidewalk, San Ramon Valley Blvd., Danville Recommended Council Action: Request a written legal evaluation from the Town Attorney addressing notice, foreseeability, dangerous-condition exposure, and the legal consequences of deferring corrective action after the Town has been placed on notice of these risks.) 6. Prompt Corrective Action The Risk Assessment concluded that the current level of municipal risk is high and that prompt corrective action is warranted. Staff Memorandum 3.1 recommends a narrower approach: park ordinance amendments, continued support for state legislation, regional coordination, and deferral of expanded residential sidewalk restrictions. The memo does not directly explain why the Risk Assessment’s conclusion requiring prompt local corrective action is incorrect. Questions: • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not directly answer the Risk Assessment’s conclusion that prompt corrective action is required? • What is the Town’s threshold for action before broader sidewalk restrictions become necessary and appropriate? • How many additional near misses, complaints, collisions, or injuries would be required before the Town acts locally on residential sidewalks? Recommended Council Action: Reject continued deferral as the default response and direct staff to return promptly with targeted local measures that can be implemented now on Town-controlled infrastructure. (See Letter Signed by 50 Danville Resident) 8 7. Lawful E-Bikes vs. Throttle-Assisted E-Motos The Risk Assessment explained that many problematic devices are not traditional bicycles, but higher-powered electric motorcycles or misclassified electric vehicles that exceed California’s statutory e-bike limits. Staff Memorandum 3.1 acknowledges that modified and higher-powered devices exist and that device classifications are difficult to distinguish in the field. However, the memo still frames much of the issue as e-bike regulation rather than squarely confronting unlawful or misclassified high-powered motorized operation in pedestrian spaces. Questions: • Why does Staff Memorandum 3.1 continue to frame the issue primarily as e-bike regulation when the Risk Assessment identifies unlawful or misclassified higher -powered electric motorcycles as a major part of the problem? • How many of the problem devices observed in Danville are lawful Class 1, 2, or 3 e - bikes, and how many are misclassified or unlawful e -motos? • Will the Town develop a practical enforcement distinction between lawful bicycles and unlawful motorized devices being operated in pedestrian spaces? • If the police are unable to tell the difference, have they asked the City Attorney, District Attorney or County Counsel for assistance? What steps do the police usually take when they are unable to determine the legality of something? (Photo: Mineta Transportation Institute’s (MTI) Project 2423 - Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California, December 2025, Figure 16. “Electric devices parked at Diablo Vista Middle School in Danville, California” - page #62) Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to clearly distinguish lawful Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes from unlawful or misclassified 9 higher-powered electric motorcycles, and to draft enforcement language aimed specifically at unlawful motorized operation in pedestrian spaces. (See Petition with 1,000 Signatures – Mostly Danville Residents) 8. School-Based and Youth Evidence The Risk Assessment cited school-area evidence, including observations involving Diablo Vista Middle School in Danville, and raised concerns about youth operation of higher-powered electric devices. Staff Memorandum 3.1 discusses youth safety concerns generally and identifies rider readiness as a central issue, but it does not directly engage with the specific local school-area evidence raised in the Risk Assessment. (Table 8 below: Mineta Transportation Institute’s Project 2423 - Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California, December 2025, page #65) Questions: • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not directly address the Diablo Vista Middle School evidence discussed in the Risk Assessment? • What Danville-specific data does the Town have regarding juveniles operating unlawful, modified, or higher-powered electric devices? • What specific coordination has occurred with SRVUSD regarding school bike corrals, device types, parent notice, and school-area enforcement? 10 Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to gather and present Danville-specific school-area data, including observations near middle schools, and to coordinate with SRVUSD and law enforcement on immediate youth safety measures. 9. Location-Based Enforcement The Risk Assessment explained that a location-based rule is simpler and more enforceable because officers can act based on observable conduct: motorized operation on a sidewalk, park path, or pedestrian-only area. Staff Memorandum 3.1 acknowledges that officers cannot readily determine rider age, device classification, or modification status, but it does not seriously analyze the simpler location-based alternative. (Photo: E-Moto on sidewalk Greenbrook Drive) Questions: • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not seriously evaluate a location -based enforcement rule for sidewalks, park paths, and other pedestrian-priority areas? • If officers cannot reliably determine device class, wattage, modification status, or rider age in the field, what is the Town’s objection to a simpler rule based on observable conduct and location? • Would a location-based rule be more enforceable than the current behavior-based standard? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to evaluate and return with a location-based enforcement ordinance focused on observable conduct: motorized operation on sidewalks, park paths, and pedestrian -priority areas, rather than relying on field determinations of class, wattage, modif ication status, or age. 11 10. Signage and Notice Deficiencies The Risk Assessment concluded that the Town has not consistently provided visible notice, standardized signage, or clear transition warnings in areas where restrictions already exist, including the business district sidewalk prohibition. Staff Memorandum 3.1 does not explain whether those concerns are valid, whether signage is presently adequate, or whether deficient notice may be undermining enforcement. Questions: • Why did Staff Memorandum 3.1 not address the signage and notice deficiencies identified in the Risk Assessment? • Has the Town evaluated whether inadequate signage is undermining enforcement of existing ordinances? • Will the Town conduct a signage audit before concluding that existing ordinances are sufficient? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to conduct a prompt signage and notice audit and install standardized, visible warning and restriction signs in all locations where sidewalk or park restrictions apply. 11. Quantified Enforcement Data Staff Memorandum 3.1 states that the Town has continued enforcement of reckless riding behavior, including impoundment, and that targeted enforcement near schools and parks has had limited effectiveness. However, it does not provide the number of citations , warnings, impounds, repeat violators, parent contacts, or cases involving the business district ordinance or existing park restrictions. Without that information, the Council cannot determine whether current ordinances are actually being enforced or whether they are effective. Questions: • How many citations, warnings, impounds, repeat contacts, and parent notifications have there been under the business district sidewalk ordinance and existing park restrictions? • What specific violations were those actions based on? • If those numbers are low, is that because violations are rare, or because enforcement is not being meaningfully carried out? Recommended Council Action: Require the Police Department to provide quantified enforcement data, including warnings, citations, impounds, repeat contacts, parent notifications, and ordinance-specific enforcement activity, before the Council determines whether current measures are effective. 12 12. Implementation Measures The Risk Assessment recommended clearer signage, enforcement of existing restrictions, updates to the Bicycle Master Plan, a near-miss and collision reporting system, and semiannual review of e-bike and e-moto crashes. Staff Memorandum 3.1 does not clearly state which of those implementation measures the Town accepts, rejects, or intends to study further. Questions: • Which implementation measures recommended in the Risk Assessment does the Town intend to adopt, and which does it reject? • If the Town rejects those recommendations, what is its basis for doing so? • Will the Town establish a near-miss reporting system and semiannual review of e-bike and e-moto incidents? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to return with an implementation plan identifying which Risk Assessment recommendations will be adopted, on what schedule, and with what responsible department. 13. Full Mineta Record Staff Memorandum 3.1 relies on the Mineta Transportation Institute report as part of the statewide research and clinical context, but the attachment list identifies the Mineta material as an executive summary rather than the full report. The full Mineta report includes additional material on powered bicycle-shaped conveyances, higher-powered devices, labeling problems, enforcement challenges, and California legal definitions. Because the full report was not placed before the Council as an attachment, the Council may not have had the full evidentiary record relevant to the issues raised in the Risk Assessment. Questions: • Why did staff provide only the Mineta executive summary instead of the full report? • Will the Town place the complete Mineta report into the public record before further action is taken? • Will staff identify which specific portions of the full Mineta report support, weaken, or complicate Staff Memorandum 3.1’s recommendations? Recommended Council Action: Require the complete Mineta report and any related supporting materials to be placed in the public record before further policy decisions are made on this issue. 13 14. Unsupported Comparative Safety Assumption A central premise of Staff Memorandum 3.1 is that expanding residential sidewalk prohibitions could move youth riders into vehicle travel lanes, where interactions with vehicles may present a higher-severity risk. That is an important concern, but the memo does not provide collision modeling, location- specific street analysis, local injury comparisons, speed data, or safe-route analysis showing that continued sidewalk operation is safer overall than a targeted sidewalk prohibition combined with education, signage, enforcement, and safe-route planning. The memo therefore relies on a comparative safety assumption that has not been fully supported in the public record. Questions: • What evidence supports the conclusion that prohibiting e-bikes and e-motos on residential sidewalks would increase overall injury risk? • Did staff analyze which residential streets, school routes, and sidewalk corridors would be affected by a prohibition? • Did staff consider a targeted ordinance that prohibits motorized operation on sidewalks while also identifying safer routes, school-area controls, and education measures? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to provide a written comparative safety analysis before relying on the assumption that residential sidewalk restrictions would reduce overall safety. That analysis should compare sidewalk risk, roadway risk, school-route conditions, rider age, device speed, and available safer- route alternatives. 15. Questions Raised by the Recommendation Section of Staff Memorandum 3.1 The Recommendation section of Staff Memorandum 3.1 states that many of the Town’s concerns involve areas governed by state law; that statewide action offers the greatest opportunity to improve clarity and enforceability; that the Town’s strongest authority lies in regulating behavior within parks and on Town-controlled infrastructure, including sidewalks; and that the most effective municipal actions are clear, objective, and enforceable within existing legal authority. It then recommends advancing the PRAC park recommendation, deferring expansion of residential sidewalk prohibitions, formally supporting pending state legislation, and continuing regional coordination and legislative advocacy. This creates a central unanswered question: if the Town acknowledges that sidewalks are within its strongest local authority, why is the Town recommending action in parks but deferral on residential sidewalks? 14 (Photo: E-moto on sidewalk, Brookside Drive) Questions: • If the Town’s strongest authority lies in parks and on Town-controlled infrastructure, including sidewalks, why is the Town deferring broader action on residential sidewalks instead of acting where it already has local authority? • If the Town’s stated standard is that the most effective municipal actions are clear, objective, and enforceable, why was a clear location-based sidewalk rule not seriously evaluated? • What exactly does the Town need from the 2026 legislative session before it can act on residential sidewalk safety under authority it already possesses? • Why does the Recommendation section propose amending the Parks Ordinance when the Town already has restrictions on motorized vehicles in parks? • Before proposing a new Parks Ordinance amendment, did staff evaluate whether the existing park prohibition has been meaningfully enforced? • What immediate local safety measures will be implemented while the Town waits for Sacramento and continues regional coordination? • If a person is injured during the period of deferral recommended in Staff Memorandum 3.1, what is the Town’s justification for having chosen delay over immediate corrective action on Town-controlled infrastructure? • Why did the Recommendation section not explain why the Risk Assessment’s engineering, enforcement, and liability findings did not justify including residential sidewalks in the recommended actions? Recommended Council Action: Direct staff to return with a revised recommendation that expressly explains why the Town’s existing authority over sidewalks and parks is not being used more fully now, and what immediate interim measures will be implemented during any period of legislati ve deferral. 15 Requested Council Action For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Town Council not to treat deferral as an adequate response to the safety issues identified in the Risk Assessment. Before relying on possible future state action, the Council should require a clear public explanation of why the Town’s existing authority over sidewalks, parks, and Town -controlled infrastructure is not being used now to address foreseeable conflicts in locations where injury risk is already known or readily identifiable. The Council should require staff to reconcile Staff Memorandum 3.1 with the recent local collision record from January 1, 2025 through April 29, 2026. The evidence shows an active pattern of e-bike collisions, substantial youth involvement, and serious injury outcomes. Before the Town defers residential sidewalk action, staff should explain why this recent local pattern does not justify immediate targeted protections on Town-controlled infrastructure. At a minimum, the Council should require staff to respond directly to the Risk Assessment’s findings regarding sidewalk width and engineering suitability, driveway and intersection conflict points, Danville collision history, enforcement practicality, signage and notice, municipal notice, and potential liability exposure. If those points cannot be answered persuasively, then the record supports immediate consideration of targeted local protections rather than continued delay. Public safety decisions should rest on clear reasoning, direct engagement with the evidence, and a demonstrated willingness to act where the Town has authority. We respectfully ask the Council to evaluate this matter on that basis. Respectfully submitted, Alan Kalin, COL, U.S. Army (Ret.) Co-Chair, Danville Safety Advocates Bruce Bilodeau Co-Chair, Danville Safety Advocates Bob Mittlelstaedt, Attorney and Co-Founder of E-Bike Access Attachments: Danville Risk Assessment Sidewalk Operation of Electric Bicycles and High -Powered Electric Motorcycles (February 1, 2026)(PDF) Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report "Exploring Electric Bicycle Safety Performance Data and Policy Options for California" Project 2423 - December 2025(PDF) (See TV New Story: Danville - Electric Motorcycles - February 13, 2026) (See TV News Story 70 E-motos & 12 Bicycles at Stone Valley Middle School Bicycle Corral - May 2025) 16 Proposed San Ramon Valley Unified School District E-bike & E-moto Policy (PDF) Listen to Alan Kalin & Bob Mittelstaedt Speaking at the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board of Education Meeting (November 18, 2025) The “e-motos” shown below were observed parked in bicycle corrals at local middle schools and are being operated on sidewalks and shared-use paths throughout Danville. . Tuttio-ICT (40+mph) Talaria (40+mph) Tuttio-Soleil01 (37mph) Movcan (37mph) REVV 1 DRT ( 34mph) Pedal-Core (32mph) 17 Ridestar Q20-Pro (32mph) Meelod-DK 300 (30mph) Ride1up (30mph) Super 73 (28mph) Cycrown-Cychunter (28mph) Volcan (28mph )