Support Bike Bills in the Virginia Senate

It's that time again...

The Transportation Committee of the Virginia Senate will consider eight bills this afternoon (Wed., January 21) that are important for Virginia bicyclists.  Northern Virginia is represented by the following four members of that committee:
1) Senator Charles Colgan (Manassas), <[email protected]>, 804-698-7529
2) Senatior Barbara Favola (Arlington), <[email protected]>,804-698-7531
3) Senator David Marsden (Burke), <[email protected]>, 804-698-7537
4) Senator Jennifer Wexton (Leesburg), <[email protected]>, 804-698-7533

Please feel free to call or email the Richmond office of any of these senators in support of some or all of these bills.  Detailed information is provided below.

Dear Senators Colgan, Marsden, Favola, and Wexton,

Please support the following bicycle- and pedestrian-related bills in the Senate Transportation Committee on January 21.

1) Crossing a double-yellow Line to pass a stopped or slow-moving vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian.  SB 781 (Alexander), SB 1027 (Garrett), and SB 1228 (Reeves) would similarly make it lawful to carefully cross a double-yellow roadway centerline to pass a stopped or slow-moving road user.  Double-yellow lines are installed when it is deemed unsafe to overtake a vehicle moving near the speed limit.  A growing number of states already allow motorists to cross a double-yellow line carefully to pass a stopped or slow-moving vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian with a safe gap, something that's already a common practice by motorists driving on Virginia's many narrow two-lane roadways. Please support this practical and common-sense exception to promote safe passing of pedestrians, bicyclists, farm vehicles, postal and garbage trucks, and other slow and stopped vehicles.   

2) Opening a vehicle door into the path of moving traffic: Senator Petersen is once again patroning legislation (SB 882) that would assign responsibility to motor vehicle occupants who cause property damage or injury by carelessly opening their vehicle door into the path of moving traffic.  Forty states already have such a law, with Virginia one of the ten that do not.  Car doors opened carelessly account for a significant share of urban bicycling crashes, and many localities install bike lanes within the "door zone" of parked vehicles.  SB 882, would create a simple $100 traffic infraction--not subject to driver demerit points and not applicable to emergency responders--that would help injured bicyclists receive just compensation from the insurance policy covering the owner of the responsible vehicle.    

3) Following non-motorized road users too closely.  Virginia is practically the only state that does not clearly prohibit motorists from rear-ending a bicyclist or other non-motorized road user. SB 1220 (Reeves) deletes a single word in Virginia’s “Following Too Closely” law (§ 46.2-816) to cover bicyclists and other lawful road users not inside a motor vehicle when rear-ended by a negligent following motorist. The Senate Transportation Committee favorably reported similar bills in 2011, 2012, and 2013, and a House version of this bill (HB 1342) was just reported 20-2 by the House Transportation Committee.

4) Prohibit the use of a handheld personal communications device while driving.  SB 1279 (Wexton) would make it unlawful to operate any handheld personal communications device while driving and establish a reckless driving charge if the motorist was also violating another traffic law or caused a crash at the same time.

5)  Mandate jail time and vehicle forfeiture for DUI without a valid drivers license.  SB 958 (Lewis) would increase penalties for driving while intoxicated and without a valid drivers license. 

6) Allow new sidewalk projects to be funded by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.  SB 932 (Petersen) would allow the NVTA to fund new sidewalk projects.  If possible, this bill should be amended to make transportation bikeways clearly eligible for NVTA money as well. 

Thank you for helping to make Virginia safer for people who walk and bike.

Sincerely,

Your Name and Mailing Address

Update; Other Bills!

The first two are similar bills that preserve highway funding in the event of a road diet. (Currently cities' and towns' highway funds from VDOT are allocated based on lane miles which means that a road diet to accommodate bike lanes can decrease funding to a city or town.) These are super important changes to help make jurisdictions receptive to the idea of a road diet rather than scared of losing funding.

 

The last bill deals with funding of paved multiuse trails.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?151+sum+HB1402
 
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?151+sum+HB1501

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?151+sum+HB1502

 

Each of these bills has already been filed for this session and referred to Transportation subcommittee #4.

Comments

[DE]

Just wrote. Really appreciate the summary of the bills, only some of which I was aware of. Overall legislature could be hostile to some, but I would expect some, esp. #1 to pass. #s 2 and 3 really need to pass, but times being what they are...

[Crickey7]

But I saw someone run a stop sign this morning on a bike!

[T]

1, 2, and 3 sound the most plausible. I sound like a broken record, but my issue with the cell phone-esque laws is that they create the unintended notion that other distractions are legal because they're not specifically banned. I prefer stricter penalties for all distracted driving. On five, if they're not playing that game where they charged people with DUI's after one glass of wine like they did the other year. And 6, makes sense.

[scoot]

I agree with T re: cell phone laws. In the same spirit, I'd strike the word "handheld" from the bill. Because drivers using hands-free tech are every bit as distracted as the folks holding phones to their ears.

[washcycle]

scoot, I'm with you, but in working the cell phone issue in DC, I've learned that only Japan (maybe, it's actually not clear) bans all use of phones for drivers. So anyone who does it will be breaking new ground.

[scoot]

@washcycle: I too am not sanguine on the likelihood of a full ban in the near future.

And I have major reservations about such laws for precisely the reasons T mentioned. We have cell phones (handheld and hands-free), bluetooth, radios, GPS devices, handheld maps, makeup, coffee, breakfast, newspapers, kids whining in the backseat, etc. Who's to say that any one of these distractions is more dangerous than another? Yet that's precisely what behavior-specific bans do. Such laws kick the can down the road.

Another challenge is that the relative danger of a given distraction is highly dependent on context. Trying to simultaneously eat a sandwich and listen to a book on tape while driving a narrow urban street in rush hour is a completely different animal from a handheld phone call on a rural freeway at 3am.
Should we ban the latter while turning a blind eye to the former?

The admittedly idealistic solution I'd prefer to see is to penalize outcomes of motorist inattentiveness (such as at-fault collisions, esp. those with injuries) rather than the behaviors themselves. But you have to do so harshly enough that rational people will voluntarily eschew all distractions while operating their vehicles. The above behaviors impose large negative externalities on all other road users in terms of decreased safety, efficiency, etc.; they persist presently because the perpetrators are not commensurately disincentivized from doing them. What is a typical outcome for a SMIDSY manslaughter? A $300 fine, with no loss of driving privilege? Confiscate a drivers' license for at least 10 years (and jail folks who drive unlicensed), then maybe people will take this responsibility seriously.

[DE]

It's a difficult issue. If you ban every distracting behavior, no one will take any ban seriously (e.g., try floating the idea of banning radios in cars and see the response). So Scoot's solution of severe penalties when at fault makes sense, except that humans are very poor at assessing probabilities over time, so many people will always think "it won't happen to me." And when it does, it's too late for the penalty to help the person already injured.

However, the penalties do need to be severe enough that a rational person has at least the potential to be deterred.

[T]

DE, distracted driving is illegal. That's my whole point in a nutshell. The penalties are weak and it's not really enforced.

So now we go forward saying driving while talking/texting is illegal. But then they think every other action in the car is okay because obviously it, too, would have been specifically banned. Literally I've had this exact discussion with several friends when I politely pointed out that maybe they shouldn't try to eat and adjust the radio dial while driving.

The public awareness campaign then should be distraction kills. Taking your eye off the road for a moment kills. Dozing off for a moment kills. Etc.

[washcycle]

Who's to say that any one of these distractions is more dangerous than another?

The same people who should say everything else: Scientists.

[washcycle]

scoot, I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. We can make some behavior illegal, while also punishing other bad behavior with fines and such. I'd argue that the second half of that is already in place, in the form of civil lawsuits. You may not lose your license, but you could lose your insurance which has the same effect. Though, perhaps all of that could be tougher.

[Mike]

@washcycle: there's good reason to doubt whether there's any such science. In post-crash investigation it's fairly easy to determine whether someone was texting or using a cell phone (there are records). Most other forms of distracted driving would only be recorded as a factor if the driver voluntarily admitted to doing something which would make them liable for increased penalties. Do you have any reason to believe that drivers are accurately reporting their distractions, or is it possible that many (most?) of the times when someone "comes out of nowhere" the driver was actually distracted but will not admit it? (And thus, it doesn't exist as far as statistical research is concerned.) I'm far more inclined to believe the behavioral science that shows that reaction times are degraded in lab conditions fairly consistently for a number of distractions, not just handheld cell phones.

[washcycle]

They've done controlled studies where people try to drive a simulator while performing other tasks. That's a pretty good way to measure how distracting activities are, for example.

[scoot]

Who's to say that any one of these distractions is more dangerous than another?
The same people who should say everything else: Scientists.

True. I suppose my rhetorical question was misplaced. I'm sure that studies can and should be designed to quantify the relative amount of distraction due to various behaviors, and perhaps someone is doing this. But to assess a danger level due to a given distraction, one would need to know both how the distraction affects visual/manual/cognitive capacity and then how that decline in capacity corresponds to an increase in danger to society. The first half can be done with a well-controlled lab study, but the link between operator decline and an increased threat to public safety will depend highly upon context (how many others are using the road, and in what capacity). Hence the hypotheticals I mentioned: it's conceivable that cell phones might be a more distracting activity than eating, but that eating during urban rush hour could be more likely to hurt people than a telephone call along a deserted highway.

+1 Mike. I am skeptical of the CDC statistics. 3300 distracted driver fatalities a year accounts for about 10% of the overall road fatalities (assuming the data are from the USA, so the denominator is roughly 30K). Does anyone believe that the true number is that low? How is each death classified as distracted vs. non-distracted? Cell phone records can be obtained via subpoena, but what driver is going to admit that he was fiddling with his stereo, or turning to discipline his kids in the back seat?

[T]

Taking it a step further, the real root issue is that people don't see vehicles as all that dangerous to themselves or others. It's probably why they have no problem cutting me off on my ride home, but I'm fearful of all of them since I know the physics do not work to my advantage.

So while it's good the public campaigns/laws talk about the dangers of distraction--even with the danger of selectively choosing some over others--but it seems bad they still don't really get to the root cause of it all.

Of course non-hands free phone use has been illegal in DC for several years now. Go figure the other night on 34th St, I got to the stop sign and had seen two cars go through in front of me. Odd, I thought, since there was a car stopped to my left. So I clicked out and waited. Finally, the car next to me in vehicular lane and I realized that driver was tapping away a text message. And yes, DC plates. Point being without stiff enforcement and tough penalties, people will continue to do something even if you tell them not to. Hence why I think we gave up too early on cracking down on distracted driving.

[DE]

"Taking it a step further, the real root issue is that people don't see vehicles as all that dangerous to themselves or others."

It's the illusion of safety caused by actually making vehicles safer (for those inside them). So, we can raise speed limits to 70+ and everyone goes along merrily feeling invulnerable.

Paradoxically, I find it increasingly terrifying. If everyone got out of there cars a bit more (as a pedestrian or cyclist, either way) we might see a bit more care taken by drivers.

[T]

You got me thinking DE that part of the driving test should be navigating a busy area as a pedestrian by foot or by bike (if the person is able to). Sort of an ancillary part of a driving test that you have to recognize the realities around you.

Sure, people would blast it as stupid, but if they had to cross K St in rush hour and saw what happens when people run red lights or even bike two miles along any area road, I'm sure they would have a different perspective. Or hope they would.

[DE]

I wonder if any states do anything along those lines. Maybe a bit impractical, but would have good results. I know that my driving changed substantially on urban and suburban roads after I became a pedestrian/cyclist in the city, although I do still drive too fast on Interstates.

[scoot]

You got me thinking DE that part of the driving test should be navigating a busy area as a pedestrian by foot or by bike (if the person is able to). Sort of an ancillary part of a driving test that you have to recognize the realities around you.

Absolutely. Require some demonstration of proficiency both on foot and by bicycle before licensing anyone to operate a motor vehicle. Create educational alternatives for those with physical disabilities.

I don't even think it would be that impractical. DMV offices could maintain several CaBi-style bikes for this purpose. And the benefits would be immense.