I went back and did a stare-and-compare of the original and committee substituted bills. So far, I can see that they added two groups to the list of "vulnerable road users:" tow truck operators and "person (s) operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor assisted scooter." It also includes language about how to deal with "vulnerable road users" (OK, that's long, I'm going to call them VRU's) who are violating the law.
The addition of the tow truck operators is sheer genius. You don't get anyone with a more anti-lycra persona than a tow truck operator. They are small business owners, blue-collar workers, and quasi-safety personnel akin to cops and fireman. They aren't there to enjoy themselves but to do their job, defusing the whole idea of "if you want to ride, fine, do it on the sidewalk." Genius. The first two witnesses for this bill in committee were tow truck operators. Motorcycle riders are a bonus because there are lots of them and they all have stories of being buzzed by cars.
The new language about what to do when VRU's are in violation of the law is a bit troubling, but it also plugs up some holes in the original bill. It used to say that a driver violating the statute could get ticketed but could use a bicycle rider's (specifically a bicycle rider, not a VRU) violation of other statutes as a defense. So if you are a ninja rider at night, the officer could still ticket a driver for buzzing you but the driver could point out to the judge that you didn't have any lights and it was 10:30 at night. I think there's a danger here, as this is carry-over language from the previous bill that was just about the 3-foot rule. This measure includes stuff about dooring, throwing stuff at a VRU from a vehicle, and intimidation, which could easily be viewed as similarly defensible if the bike rider isn't obeying the law. Under the new language, the 3-foot rule and the 3-foot rule only goes out the window if you aren't obeying the law. Riding down the middle of the freeway with no lights and swerving back and forth doesn't mean that drivers should be able to throw their beer bottles at your noggin. It also means that not only is it a defense, but it's assumed that if you are a VRU riding in violation of the law, the officer isn't obligated to write a ticket for someone violating the 3-foot rule. I can see how some officers might use this as an out though. It also only says "in violation of the law," where it used to specify the statutes in question, so now there's an additional layer of complexity. Other traffic law? State law? What if a city mandates reflectors on your pedals? What if a county says you can't ride after dusk? We still get the rest of the protections afforded us from this bill (which are significant) but the three foot rule might be at risk.

I think I'm going to email Bob Mionske to ask him about this. Google him if you don't recognize him.