TheWashCycle

What's in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015

Holy mackerel, Cheh's Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act has a lot in it. In short:

• Lots of data reporting
• complete streets policy
• pedestrian and bicycle priority zones
• stop as yield  Idaho Stop (sorry Crickey)
• dooring language change
• bicycle insurance provisions
• universal street safety education mandate
• targeted for-hire vehicle operator training
• study of a remediation and deferred disposition program
• escalating fines for repeat offenders
• tougher distracted driving law
• a new penalty for aggressive driving
• required side-underrun guards and blind spot mirrors or cameras on trucks
• study of pedestrian alert devices on District-owned large vehicles
• access to video for crash victims
• creation of a major crash-review task force

Thanks to Greg Billing to proving me a link to the bill. 

Unpacking it a bit.

1. DDOT will have to regularly publish crash data, sidewalk closure information and information on citizen petitions for for traffic calming measures on its website, MPD will do the same with moving violations. DDOT will also report annually on dangerous locations. Every 5 years DDOT will report with recommendations on how to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.

2. DDOT is instructed to create Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Areas (at least one per ward) where right-turns-on-red can be abolished, speed limits lowered and more TCO and camera-enforcement can be utilized.

3. DDOT will adopt a complete streets policy. [They have one now, but is one issued by the DDOT Director, and thus can be removed by them at any time. This one will be law.]

4. The law will be changed to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, just as pedestrians do. DC would adopt an Idaho Stop law. (I had to reread it to catch it) Cyclists approaching a stop sign or stop light will be required to slow down, and if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing or stopping, the cyclist will yield the ROW, after slowing and yielding the cyclist may proceed through the intersection.

5. Dooring will be redefined to explicitly include bicycles.  

6. Bicycle insurance will be governed by the same laws as motor-vehicle insurance, and bicycle insurance providers may require policy holders to register their bikes.

7. All schools will have a curriculum available to them on safe cycling and walking.

8. For-hire vehicle operators will be required to learn about issues related to bicycle and pedestrian safety as part of existing mandatory training. And those using digital dispatch will require additional training.

9. The Mayor is required to study a remediation and deferred disposition program for people committing moving violations. 

10. Repeat offenders will see larger fines - up to 5 times as much for 4th time offenses. This will be true for speeding offenses, crosswalk violations, right-of-way violations, stopping or standing violations (including in a bike lane, sorry UPS). 

11. Drivers will no longer be able to use the phone when the car is not moving. 

12. Drivers who commit 3 or more or a set of violations (like speeding or improper lane changes) can be cited for aggressive driving, which carries a penalty of $200 and 2 points and mandatory driver education.

13. All heavy-duty vehicles registered in the District will be required to have side under run guards, reflective blind spot warning stickers and either blind spot mirrors or cameras. This is currently the law for District-owned vehicles.

14. The Mayor is instructed to report to the council as to whether Circulator buses and District-owned heavy duty vehicles can be equipped with pedestrian alert technology.

15. If a District owned camera captures video of a crash all vehicle operators involved in that crash will be informed that the footage exists, the footage will be preserved and the parties will be assisted in acquiring the footage.

16. A Major Crash Review Task Force will be established to review every crash investigated by the Major Crash Investigation Unit and as a result, recommend changes to reduce the number of major crashes.

17. The Kitchen sink

This would represent a major improvement in the safety of DC streets for vulnerable users and put DC at the forefront of American cities with respect to pedestrian and cyclist safety. It's ambitious, but everything on here represents something for which consensus existed among the Bicycle and Pedestrian Task Force (which was co-chaired by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) and AAA Mid-Atlantic).  

Cheh Introduces “Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015”

I don't have time to write about this now, but as one who was on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Working Group I find this welcome news. (bolded part broken out by me).

Today, September 16^th, Councilmember Mary M. Cheh (D – Ward 3), Chair of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment, introduced the “Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015.” The bill provides a comprehensive update to the District’s laws and regulations as they pertain to motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety.

“Earlier this year, I convened a Bicycle & Pedestrian Working Group to foster a deliberative, thoughtful, and open discussion on how to best update the District’s approach to motor, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. The “Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015” is the end result of months of collaboration between my office, District agencies, law enforcement, and transportation advocates. By gathering everyone around the same table, we were able to debate and discuss what safety measures have been successful and what needs improvement from a variety of perspectives. This bill is a comprehensive and inclusive approach to making the roadways and sidewalks safer for all,” said Councilmember Cheh.

The bill would

• make a significant amount of crash, traffic violation, and closure data more readily accessible to the public
• establish the Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Area Program to designate safety enhancement priority areas across the District in locations with heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic
• incorporate a Complete Streets policy within DDOT to ensure that the construction,  reconstruction, and maintenance of roads includes infrastructure that accommodates all multimodal users, including those with disabilities
• and require the Mayor to study the feasibility of a remediation and deferred disposition program that would enable a person guilty of a moving violation to take a safety course in lieu of paying some or all of the associated fine.

“The “Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act” changes the way our agencies address and prioritize safety concerns in the built environment, and it also encourages users of our transportation system to engage in safer behavior –in this way we can establish a system of mutual accountability. For example, one aspect of the bill includes greater oversight of DDOT’s infrastructure improvements and traffic modifications, while another section of the bill prohibits aggressive driving, and creates an escalating fine system for repeat offenders of moving violations directly affecting bicyclists and pedestrians. The bill also establishes a universal street and bicycle safety education curriculum for District schoolchildren,” said Councilmember Cheh.

The Bicycle & Pedestrian Working Group was co-chaired by the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) and AAA Mid-Atlantic throughout six open forum meetings in May and June. Other members of the fourteen member working group include: All Walks DC, Bicycle Advisory Council, DC Surface Transit, Department of Insurance, Securities & Banking (DISB), District of Columbia Insurance Federation (DCIF), District Department of Transportation (DDOT), Mayor’s Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Pedestrian Advisory Council, PULSE Issues & Advocacy, and the United Spinal Association. The Working Group is currently composing a final report of recommendations to be presented to the Committee on Transportation & the Environment.

“In addition to the Working Group meetings, I also coordinated site visits with DDOT, the relevant ANCs, MPD, and bicycle and pedestrian advocates to the top five most dangerous intersections in the District to evaluate what short-term and long-term changes can be made to mitigate safety concerns. Being on-site with residents and connecting them with the agency decision makers was an incredibly helpful way to evaluate the infrastructure and behavioral challenges we face when attempting to improve our transportation system. This bill, the Working Group report, and dangerous intersection site visits are all components of a larger effort to reform and modernize the way the District responds to safety hazards on the roadways. The input we received from the community has been invaluable throughout this evaluation process, and I encourage residents to remain engaged and invested in this continued effort,” said Councilmember Cheh.

CM Alexander is not quite sure why we have bike lanes

GGW recently took upon themselves the heroic effort of trying to pin down who on the DC Council does and does not support extending the barriers along the Pennsylvania Avenue protected bike lanes to the two blocks nearest city hall. [The rumor, never substantiated as near as I can tell, is that these two blocks were not included to accommodate the wishes of the council]. During a twitter chat following the article, Councilmember Yvette Alexander wrote:

 

@zwirnm @ggwash Bikers sometimes don't use the bike lanes and that should be enforced as well!

— Yvette M Alexander (@CMYMA) August 7, 2015

which led GGW's Aimee Custis to point out that cyclists are not required to ride in bike lanes - so there is nothing to be enforced. Alexander then asked

 

@WABADC @AimeeCustis @zwirnm Well, why have them?

— Yvette M Alexander (@CMYMA) August 7, 2015

Oh boy...I'll just note that WABA has invited her along for a ride to show her the value (and limitations?) of bike lanes.

I usually use the bike lanes on Penn, but when it's crowded I sometimes move over into the all-traffic lanes, bike lane traffic is moving too slow, and cars are going slower allowing me to easily keep up.

Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act to go for mark-up in July

This is the bill that aims to fix the contributory negligence issue for cyclists and pedestrians. It will reportedly be considered by the Judiciary committee in July, before the recess on the 15th. 

The "Gas Station Preservation Act" of DC actually isn't law yet (actually, see update)

Update: Even though it was reported as dead in chamber it wasn't. It passed and became law on May 2nd. The 2015 bill was emergency legislation, though I'm not clear why that was needed. It still only applies to full-service station conversions though, as I read it. Georgetown Metropolitan has heard some speculation that the law came from Mendelson, and notes that the bill was introduced by him. But the bill, as originally introduced had nothing to do with gas stations.It was just about removing unneeded boards. Anywhoo, I apologize for any confusion.

In mid-March I reported on a bill that was introduced that would, among other things, create extra hoops for any gas station that wanted to convert into something else like a condo or office building. Then at the end of March, the Post reported that this was already law. 

You'll be happy to know that I was probably right and they were most likely wrong. It looks like the bill they cited (Bill 20-71 for those of you keeping track at home) died in chamber (which might explain the "little fanfare"). So, that should put everyone at ease.

But, if you oppose such a law, because it's stupid, then you should be worried that the same language was re-introduced this year (Bill 21-46). The upside is that there is still time to kill it - I suppose. 

The gas station advisory board, actually dates back to 1976, when full service stations were being converted into self-service. The concern was that auto owners would be unable to find places to have their car serviced. I don't know if anyone has challenged the city's ability to do this from a property rights standpoint, but if so, then I guess it has stood up.

I heard a rumor that this expansion of the law came from Jack Evans, who was concerned that his gas station of choice (on Wisconsin Avenue, I think) was going to be converted into a condo and he was unhappy about that, so he wanted to be able to stop that. Prior to that, they were actually going to kill the Gas Station Advisory Board which has had no members since 2006.  

One more thing, the bill doesn't apply to all gas stations. I don't know if this is a mistake or what, but the current change to the language would only mean that a full-service station couldn't be turned into a condo. But it doesn't appear to apply to nonfull service station.

Below is the current law with the additions in bold. The underlined part is emphasis I added. 

No retail service station which is operated as a full service retail service station on or after April 19, 1977, may be discontinued, nor may be structurally altered, modified, or otherwise converted, irrespective of the type or magnitude of the alteration, modification, or conversion, including, but not limited to, any alteration, modification, or conversion which has the effect of merely obstructing access to an existing garage, service bay, work area, or similar enclosed area by any motor vehicle which was previously accommodated, into a nonfull service facility or to any other use.

So this may very well be targeted at harming a Georgetown service station conversion, but it's neither law nor currently targeting all gas stations.

It's still stupid, and they should just follow the recommendations of the Office of Boards and Commissions and kill this particular board. That is all, now back to bike stuff. 

Mendelson bill would increase penalties for distracted driving

The Distracted Driving Safety Act of 2004 brought DC into line with best practices of other states in banning the use of handheld devices by drivers. But the penalty for that doesn't single out repeat offenders, and is easy to avoid for first time offenders. Under that law, the penalty is $100, but first-time violators can have the fine suspended by providing proof of having acquired a hands-free accessory prior to the imposition of the fine, and there are no points imposed on violators.

DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson introduced a bill this session, the Enhanced Penalties for Distracted Driving Amendment Act of 2015, to strengthen those penalties. It would increase the fines for those who are found to have repeatedly engaged in distracted driving, culminating in a driver’s license suspension for those who have three violations within eighteen months. The bill was co-introduced by Bonds, Allen, and Nadeau and referred to the Committee of Transportation and the Environment chaired by Mary Cheh.

Under the proposed law, the first violation will still be $100 but buying a hands-free accessory with not suspend the fine. Furthermore, under the new law fines will escalate over an 18 month period. The 2nd violation in that time period would result in a $200 fine, and subsequent violations will result in a $400 fine plus the suspension of the driver's license and the cars registration for 60 to 180 days.  In addition, starting with the 2nd violation, points may be assessed even for violations that do not result in a crash. 

It's a good change to the law. Allowing people to buy hands-free accessories may have made sense in 2004 when such laws were new, but they're now commonplace and people should know better. Targeting repeat offenders, and suspending the licenses of the worst among them, should help to make our roads safer.

I'd like to see DC go further and become the first jurisdiction* to explicitly make driving while talking on the phone - hands-free or otherwise - illegal. The law already states that "Distracted driving shall be prohibited" and defines Distracted Driving as "inattentive driving while operating a motor vehicle that results in the unsafe operation of the vehicle where such inattention is caused by reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo, using personal communications technologies, or engaging in any other activity which causes distractions." But it would be wise, based on our current understanding of how talking on the phone detracts from ones ability to drive safely, to explicitly ban phone use by drivers as we do with school bus drivers and those with learner's permits.

Alternatively, we could nibble around the edges by extending the restriction on phone use to those under 21 years old (as New Jersey does), or in school zones, construction sites and within 500 feet of a crash site as Illinois does. Or break new ground by baring drivers of large trucks from using their phones. 

And yes, same goes for cyclists. 

Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2015

The Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2015, Mary Cheh's bill to fix the contributory negligence issue for cyclists and pedestrians, is now online. You can compare it to the 2014 bill here. The language is quite different, but I'll try to summarize the differences as best as I can.

1. The new bill allows cyclists and pedestrians to recover from a motorist as long as they are less than 50% responsible. So if the vulnerable user is 49% responsible, than the motorist(s) pays 100% of the cost. If there are two other parties that are 25% and 26% responsible, the vulnerable user can still collect 100%. But if they are 51% at fault, they get nothing. Under the 2014 bill, the cyclist could collect at the proportion that the other party was at fault. So if the driver was 60% at fault, they paid 60% of the costs.

2. This new bill specifically says that "in no event shall this act change or affect the doctrine of joint and several liability"

3. The new bill explicitly states that it doesn't change the protection offered to cyclists or pedestrians under a pair of previous laws; and that it is nonseverable - if one part is invalidated, the whole law is invalidated. 

In addition to Cheh, it is being co-introduced by Bonds, Evans, Grosso, and Allen. That's bodes well for the bill. There is reason to be hopeful. 

Contributory Negligence Bill officially dead

Tabled in committee. 

Sidewalk Cycling and the Roller Coaster Paradox

From a story on Washingtonian

Graham argues allowing bikes onto sidewalks only transfers the hazards bikers face to pedestrians. “It doesn’t make sense to me, and I’ve got too many people who have fear of injury,” Graham says. The council member said he believes the bill will encourage more bike lanes, as pedestrians lobby for their construction to protect walking space.

There are two things here. One is that Graham is trying to protect people from the fear of injury - not actual injury. Some of this is legit, as people should not have to live with fear or be constantly startled, but some of this is what I call the Roller Coaster Paradox.

I usually refer to this when people ask "isn't biking dangerous?" It can be scary some time, scarier than driving, but it's not significantly more dangerous (if it is at all. I've become convinced that we really don't know). In that sense it's like roller coasters. People drive to the amusement park and then they ride roller coasters. They find the first part to be nothing of concern (maybe they even sleep on the way) but the roller coasters are quite terrifying, by design. But in reality the drive is far more dangerous. The fatality rate for 100 million miles of travel by car in 2000 was 0.86, but for roller coasters it was only 0.70 - and the drive is far longer than a roller coaster ride. So the roller coaster is scarier, but not as dangerous.

I think part of the concern about sidewalk cycling stems from this: it can be scary for pedestrians, but not that dangerous. Pedestrians have a legitimate right to ask to not be scared, but so do cyclists who are choosing the sidewalk over the road. What we probably need is for the MPD to enforce laws against unsafe sidewalk cycling and perhaps for the council to define some rules (a sidewalk speed limit, perhaps lower when pedestrians are present? A no passing rule, perhaps tied to sidewalk width? A strict "hitting a pedestrian on the sidewalk creates a presumption of guilt" rule?)

The second part is Graham's claim that this law will encourage more bike lanes due to pedestrians lobbying for them. I think this is a very unlikely outcome. For one thing, AllWalksDC already supports more bike lanes, as does the Pedestrian Advisory Council. In addition, since cycletracks have already been shown to reduce sidewalk cycling in DC, people opposed to that behavior already have reason to support them, I have not seen any interest in that from the people pushing for this law. If Graham wants more bike lanes and cycletracks, he's had ample opportunity to engage with DDOT to make that happen. This is not "Force 10 From Navarone" where the easiest way to destroy the bridge it to blow up the dam. The easiest way to install more bike lanes, is to install more bike lanes. 

 

Committee Roundtable on Move DC next week

Next Friday

The Committee on Transportation and the Environment will conduct a Public Oversight Roundtable on the District of Columbia Street Car system and the Move DC plan.

Persons wishing to testify should contact Ms. Aukima Benjamin, Staff Assistant, at (202)724-8062 or via email at [email protected].