How the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act has changed

As mentioned yesterday, the DC Council passed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Amendment Act of 2016, which is the post-hearing version of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Act of 2015. The two laws have many similarities but in a few key ways they differ.  At this link is a list of what the 2015 bill included. And the main differences are listed below (there are also some smaller differences like the exact data that needs to be reported or who is responsible for this task or that)

The 2016 bill

• Removes the provision to allow bicyclists to observe stop signs as yield signs
• Removes the provision to increase penalties for repeat offenders of traffic violations (including bike lane violations)
• Removes the provision that would expand distracted driving to include drivers sitting behind the wheel of a non-moving, but idling, motor vehicle.
• Adds language to enhance the penalties for operating and parking an all-terrain vehcile or dirt bike in the public right-of-way
• Adds a provision to require mandatory participation in the interlock program for all offenders that have a blood alcohol level above the legal limit 
• Adds a provision to impose a permanent license revocation for a third conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving while intoxicated, or operating a vehicle whole impaired
• Increase penalties for first time drunk driving offenders and offenders with blood alcohol content above .08 but less than .20
• Gives much greater details on bicycle insurance regulations - now a whole section instead of two lines.

So that's some good additions and some unfortunate removals. I'll note that everything AAA didn't like (increased fines for repeate offenders and the Idaho Stop) were removed from the bill - despite them officially supporting the 2015 bill. 

Comments

[Atlas Cesar]

is it possible to FOIA the council? would be curious about why the changes were made

[DaveS]

Does anyone remember better if the provisions that made up the original bill were the ones that came through the working group with consensus or those that came through unanimously?

It was one or the other, I just can't recall. In any event, there were other beneficial recommendations that were developed but failed to reach the threshold for inclusion.

The AAA was part of the working group, of course, so anything they openly opposed didn't even make it that far. It was frustrating to watch them use the 2015 hearing to reopen the issues they "didn't like" after all the effort that went into crafting the bill in the first place. Obviously they continued to exert pressure to weaken or remove the agreed-upon proposed laws, and were very successful.

(Yeah, some of the additions are great in a broad sense. They arose from DC's Vision Zero planning, and will help protect everybody and everything in the District from dangerous drivers. On balance it will be good to have this bill passed, but in the interests of simple language this is no longer the "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Amendment Act" and would be better known as "The AAA's Impediment to Safety and Alternative Transportation Act".)

[washcycle]

I don't know, aren't legislative bodies immune to FOIA? Because it would make it too hard for them to negotiate bills?

[washcycle]

DaveS, it was unanamity - or more like every group had a veto. Townsend would sometimes say he didn't like something but wouldn't oppose it. Or with the Idaho Stop, he first said OK, then changed his mind but said he wouldn't take back his agreement. But then it seems like he continued to fight the parts he didn't like.

[Atlas Cesar]

It seems that on a Federal level, only executive branch can be FOIA'd. For DC, it appears the council does respond to FOIA requests (unless I am misreading this: http://dccouncil.us/pages/freedom-of-information-act)

I've never made a request before, but I may put one together to get more info.

[Zack Rules]

How disappointing, I think the repeat offender provision would have made a big difference. Think about the $15m per year FedEx pays in DC tickets would have gone way up and they might have changed behavior to save money. But no, the council got cold feet even though less than of DC residents drive to work.

[long timer]

"But no, the council got cold feet even though less than of DC residents drive to work."

Ward 9 always has its voice...

[Ken]

the exemptions:

http://dccode.org/simple/sections/2-534.html

[Ken]

Pulling back the repeat offender increase in blocking makes no sense - why would you be scared of FedEx? They can't choose where their business is. An as Zack states it might even have changed behavior - the thing we are trying to accomplish with the law in the first place.

[ontarioroader]

They're may not be scared of FedEX from an immediate business standpoint, but from a their lobbyists regarding reelection campaign contributions, perks, career opportunities after elected office, etc.