You are on page 1of 3

08/20/2020

The Honorable Toni Atkins


Senate President Pro Tempore
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814

The Honorable Shannon Grove


Senate Minority Leader
State Capitol, Room 305
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1286 (Muratsuchi): Shared Mobility Devices: Agreements: OPPOSE

Dear President Toni Atkins and Leader Shannon Grove,

In less than seven years, the shared micromobility industry has provided Californians with tens
of millions of zero-emission transportation trips on bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters, in close
partnership with California cities to help achieve shared sustainability, congestion, and equity
goals. In doing so, this partnership has:
● successfully eliminated tens of millions of car trips from our city streets;
● improved transit access for tens of millions of Californians; and
● provided free, socially distant transportation to essential workers.

We write in opposition to AB 1286, which could undo all of that work. AB 1286 threatens the
existence of shared micromobility in California by denying it the same legal
protections afforded to every other industry.

Specifically, section (b)(2) of AB 1286 bans any provisions in a shared micromobility user
agreement by which “the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or
remedies”. Such provisions are found in nearly every user agreement in California across
every
industry, because they clearly define the parameters of liability and methods for resolution
between consumers and companies — including protecting companies from liability for
incidents caused by no fault of their own.

Existing California statute and case law already govern such waiver provisions in a manner
that protects consumers. See, e.g., California Civil Code § 1668; Buchan v. United States
Cycling Federation, Inc., 227 Cal.App.3d 134 (1991). Companies and their insurers rely on
decades of California jurisprudence on this subject, which apply well-settled legal tests and
principles to ensure consistent and equitable standards of liability across all industries.

AB 1286 would rewrite California law and establish a novel legal standard applicable
only to the shared micromobility industry. By denying cities, riders, and shared
micromobility providers the contractual freedom afforded to every other industry in
California, it would expose providers and cities to liability and risk for events outside of
their control. Under AB 1286, for example, neither cities nor providers would be allowed to
require riders to waive claims resulting from a rider’s own negligence or recklessness. 1

As the bill’s sponsors admit, no other industry is subject to such a provision. California
permits and upholds the same waivers of liability for skydiving, trampoline parks, dirt bicycling,
motor vehicle rental, and countless other consumer activities. There is no legal or policy
justification why California’s bikeshares and e-scooters alone should be singled out in
California and denied the legal protections afforded to all other industries. 2 Safety studies,
including from California cities as well as the OECD, show that shared micromobility is as safe
as other modes of transportation, and that reducing automobile vehicle miles traveled, including
by encouraging use of shared micromobility, has by far the greatest impact on improving traffic
safety.3

Other provisions of AB 1286 are also problematic. Section (b)(1) would preempt cities by
requiring them to substantially raise insurance requirements beyond what most cities deem
necessary, while section (c) limits city discretion in piloting innovative new transportation
programs. Providers already work closely with city partners, leveraging their shared goals of
expanded micromobility modes and keeping them affordable. Both of these provisions
would raise the cost of shared micromobility in California, further adding to the fees and
regulatory burdens imposed on bikes and scooters but not on other modes.

1 The provisions impacted by AB 1286 are currently the subject of pending litigation. Some of those
provisions have already been upheld by California courts as consistent with public policy, while others
have yet to be decided. The Legislature should not pass a bill that would directly impact and interfere with
pending litigation, particularly litigation brought by the bill’s sponsor. 2 Indeed, the California Supreme
Court has suggested the opposite should be true, noting that in light of the consistent nationwide pattern
of upholding releases of liability for “gymnasiums and fitness clubs, auto and motorcycle racing events,
ski resorts and ski equipment, bicycle races, skydiving or flying in ‘ultra light’ aircraft,” that “recent
appellate decisions have concluded categorically” that such user agreements “are not void as against
public policy.” Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747, 758 (Cal. 2007). 3 As the OECD
International Transport Forum found, “A trip by car or by motorcycle in a dense urban area is much more
likely to result in the death of a road user – this includes pedestrians – than a [micromobility trip]. A modal
shift from motor vehicles towards [micromobility] can thus make a city safer.”
But it is section (b)(2) that threatens the very existence of shared micromobility in California by
denying it the same legal protections afforded to every other industry. And it could not come at
a worse time: across the world, people are increasingly relying on shared micromobility as a
form of socially distant transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many more riders have
shifted their transportation habits to micromobility, particularly among lower-income essential
workers, and are taking many more trips, particularly where transit services have been cut.

Other cities around the world have recognized this phenomenon and are rushing to expand
access to clean, socially distant micromobility. But AB 1286 would instead legislate it out of
existence, sending California down a regressive path and adding tens of millions of car
trips each year to our cities’ streets. We urge you to oppose AB 1286.

Sincerely,

Bird
Bicycle Transit Systems
CalAsian Chamber of Commerce
Circulate San Diego
Lime
Lyft
Razor
Santa Monica Spoke
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Spin
Streets For All
TechNet
Uber
Wheels

cc: Members of the Senate

You might also like