Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Cheh Introduces “Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015” | Main | Rooftop bike parking »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is excellent. Stop as yield, just like reality! (Note: We really need to not abuse this and actually to yield the right-of-way. It shouldn't be too hard for most of us, but...)

Any idea if Contributory Negligence reform is dead or just being handled separately?

Wish it included the Comparative Negligence fixes that I am pretty sure never happened, but this is still pretty awesome.

Not dead, being handled separately.

Any ideas here on number of cosponsors? I count Cheh, Grosso, Silverman, Nadeau, Allen as solid yes votes, but where will the other 3 votes come from? Greg, care to speculate?

I like the idea of the contributory negligence part being separate, simply because against votes who are in the trial lawyers pockets can become yes votes without annoying their major campaign donors.

Whoa whoa whoa, what's this about bike insurance? This is kinda making me feel uneasy. Can anyone fill me in here?

Greg, from the Draft Report of the B&P Safety Working Group:

"The District of Columbia has promulgated traffic laws pertaining to “bicyclists,” under, for example, DC Municipal Regulation Title 18, Section 2101.1, Section 2101.1, and Section 1201.15, among a few. Relevant insurance laws in the District of Columbia specifically include references to “motorist,” “motor vehicles,” “passengers,” and “pedestrians.” However, there is no reference to “bicyclist” or “cyclist” in the District insurance laws.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Working Group recommends that the District’s insurance law should include reference to bicyclists, and ensure that bicyclists receive the same level of consumer protections as motor vehicles."

DE

Presumably one benefit of legalizing Idaho (or do we say Colorado, because red lights are still red lights?) is that Waba can now educate how properly Idaho. At least in the District.

The insurance thing more or less just requires that companies that provide bicycle insurance must follow DC's insurance-offering laws. It doesn't require cyclists to have insurance, if i'm reading it correctly.

Yeah, I see it. If that item gets out to, say WTOP, it will be a very bad thing.

Crikey, WTOP commenters complain about anything a cyclist does regardless of legality.

How often do you see comments about how horrible bikers are because they don't wear helmets (18+), bike on the sidewalk outside of downtown, or take the lane?

If you have property insurance (and you should) it generally provides liability coverage for bicycling.

I saw Brandon Todd liked Mary Cheh's posting of the Act on Facebook--is he a potential yes vote?

This is great, very excited, now we just have to get it passed. Idaho stop law is the defacto law already, even MPD bike officers follow it.

Wow, this is actually MORE pro-cyclist than the Idaho stop, right? I've understood the latter to mean stop signs are yields and red lights are stop signs, but this says "stop sign or stop light" so they're treated the same, yes? You must slow down but only have to stop if there's someone approaching. Interested to know how realistic it is for this bill to actually pass.

Re: "digital dispatch" (#8 in the list): is that code for Uber? Or is it more about additional distracting electronics in traditional taxi/livery and delivery vehicles?

It's code for uber or uber-like.

Then would this (if it passes, of course) be the first training requirement for Uber drivers in DC?

This article from February just mentions background check and insurance requirements: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/new-regulations-for-uber-and-lyft-open-the-door-for-expansion/2015/02/21/8445149a-b83e-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader