« Met Branch Trail's Fort Totten section ready for design-build | Main | DDOT to present 30% design plans for the Florida Avenue NE improvement project »

Comments

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

Great work posting this. I've written to all seven delegates. btw, Paul Krizek’s email has a typo; it should be DelPKrizek@house.virginia.gov

I wrote the chair and the del. for my county. Thanks for the draft to start with.

Thanks for posting. SB 1339 is being heard in the Criminal Laws Subcommittee of the House Courts of Justice Committee this afternoon (the four members from NoVA are Albo, Miller, Herring, Watts, and Gilbertt. If it's not killed there, I'll post an update.

Serious question: How would these bills actually improve cycling in Virginia?

SB 1338: Isn't it already illegal to drive into a bike lane without yielding to bikes first, by 46.2-804-2? Why should we explicitly prohibit drivers from using empty bike lanes to get around drivers that are waiting for an opportunity to turn left? Thousands of drivers use shoulders every day to proceed past turning vehicles; it's very easy to check for traffic and execute this same maneuver safely even if there is a bike lane.

SB 1339: Anyone that this law ensnares should already be chargeable under 46.2-852, right? Would this law be any more effective at convicting and/or taking licenses from "SMIDSY" drivers than the existing code and penalties for reckless driving?

"Two bills designed to make biking safer..."

Explain what justifies this statement...

I think the goal of 1338 is to create a culture of safe driving. When I was learning to drive, my Dad made me use the turn signal any time I would turn, even if was just in our driveway or into a parking lot parking space. Now it's such a part of my driving that I never fail to signal. 1338 could have that effect, if it's illegal to go in the bike lane in every situation, maybe people will keep the hell out when there's someone to crash into. We do this kind of thing at work all the time. We don't just follow the process when we need to, we follow it every time because you don't want to get in the habit of cutting corners.

1339 creates a new standard and new penalties and yes the idea is to remove the SMDISY defense. 'Surovell said if the bill becomes law, it could set a standard that could help victims win civil suits against drivers for damages too. “Right now, if a driver basically stands up in court and says ‘I didn’t see him’, it’s pretty much an absolute defense,” Surovell said.'

By the way 1338 was killed because "Members were concerned that it would be “confusing” to drivers."

SB 1339 was killed on Wednesday in the Criminal Laws Subcommittee, so we'll have to try again next year.

OK, I'll admit to it. What is SMDISY?

Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You

^ Thanks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader