Bike-related bills in the *2015* Virginia General Assembly…

[mattotoole]

Today’s report from the Senate Transpo Committee:

http://www.vabike.org/senate-transportation-committee-meeting-results-12115/

So… success with Crossing the Double Yellow and Dooring, feeling good about Following Too Closely, and hopeful about Hands-Free Cell Phones.

Everyone please contact your delegates about the House version of Following Too Closely, HB 1342. This nice bit of coverage may help:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/virginia-house-panel-oks-bill-to-protect-bicyclists/article_ac7fd7e9-76a5-511d-aa12-9174e619bde7.html?mode=jqm

[mattotoole]

HB 1342, Following (Bicycles) Too Closely, is up for a House vote as soon as tomorrow. Everyone please contact your delegates! Use this article for inspiration: http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/transportation/virginia-house-panel-oks-bill-to-protect-bicyclists/article_ac7fd7e9-76a5-511d-aa12-9174e619bde7.html?mode=jqm

Today’s report: http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-12215-maintenance-funding-cell-phone-restrictions-following-too-closely/

[mattotoole]

Email or call your senators NOW – this weekend – about Crossing the Double Yellow and Dooring, up for a Senate vote Monday.

Also on Monday: Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks in House Transportation Subcommittee 2. Are you in Del Jim LeMunyon’s district? Please email or call his office.

http://www.vabike.org/legislative-update-12315/

[mstone]

@mattotoole 106415 wrote:

Also on Monday: Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalks in House Transportation Subcommittee 2. .

As usual, the best we can hope for, and it sucks. If I’m reading it right, motorists don’t have to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks on stroads where the speed limit is more than 35MPH? We still have to scurry across in fear for our lives?

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 106421 wrote:

As usual, the best we can hope for, and it sucks. If I’m reading it right, motorists don’t have to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks on stroads where the speed limit is more than 35MPH? We still have to scurry across in fear for our lives?

IANAL, but my reading is that the existing law is that drivers only need to stop at crosswalks on 35MPH+ stroads if the crosswalks are clearly marked (while on slower streets they need to stop for all marked crosswalks, as well as the implicit crosswalks that exist where a sidewalk reaches the street) – but under the new law, they would have to stop at any marked crosswalk even on a stroad and could not use the lack of clarity as a defense (but there would still be no implicit crosswalks on 35MPH+ stroads)

Anyway, hoping for progress on dooring and following too closely. Two years ago we asked for those plus 3 ft passing. And got nothing. Last year we got only 3ft, and nothing else. If we get just one of dooring or following too closely, we will be getting one piece of improved biking law every year.

The glass is a bit more than half full.

[chris_s]

Virginia law is that drivers must YIELD, not stop. Which means they can change lanes, etc rather than stop. This would change that.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[scoot]

@chris_s 106429 wrote:

Virginia law is that drivers must YIELD, not stop. Which means they can change lanes, etc rather than stop. This would change that.

Yes, but only for roads with speed limit 35MPH and less. Yield would still be the only requirement for stroads higher than 35MPH.

[mstone]

@chris_s 106429 wrote:

Virginia law is that drivers must YIELD, not stop. Which means they can change lanes, etc rather than stop. This would change that.

Unless they’re going really fast, then they can carry on as usual.

[scoot]

FWIW, I’d rank Following Too Closely and Passing Over a Double Yellow as most crucial for the legal acceptance and protection of cyclists on roads in the Commonwealth. Dooring would be nice but is lower priority, IMO.

Oh yeah, and get drivers to pay attention to the road already. So the cell phone bill is another important one. Unfortunately, handheld devices are just a small part of the distracted driving problem, though, so even if it passes, I don’t expect much improvement there.

[mattotoole]

scoot,

All that stuff will be in the Senate tomorrow, up for vote on the floor or in committee.

http://www.vabike.org/legislative-update-12715/

It’s not too late for everyone to email or call their senator tonight!

[mattotoole]

A good day for us: 2 bills through the Senate, 2 through Senate Transpo, and an unfavorable House bill de-fused:

http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-january-28/

Special thanks to Champe Burnley for working with committee members. He even got Sen. Carrico to break a perfect 10+ year record of voting against us.

Updated — here’s Part 2, from Bud:

http://www.vabike.org/legislative-report-january-28-part-2/

[bobco85]

Thank you for posting the updates.

Finally, I’m happy to report that I had a cordial discussion with Delegate Riley Ingram, Patron of the Mandatory Sidepath Bill, HB1746. Delegate Ingram is open to considering a much more limited scope which is a move in the right direction.
We will continue to explore options with him.

Mandatory Sidepath Bill? This is what the bill (as introduced) reads:

Operation of bicycles on certain bicycle paths and trails, bicycle lanes, and shared-use paths. Provides that wherever a bicyclepath or trail designated by the Department of Conservation and Recreation, a bicycle lane, or a shared-use path is available to bicyclists as an alternative to a roadway available for motor vehicles, bicyclists are required use those paths, lanes, and trails and are prohibited from using roadways available for operation of motor vehicles.

My first reaction to reading this: “F*** that!”

I do not like even the idea of forcing cyclists off the road unless it is limited access (we already have laws requiring that). This bill would only provide the opportunity for drivers and/or the police to harrass cyclists who choose not to ride on sidepaths/lanes/trails because said paths are unplowed or not maintained well or the cyclist needs to take the lane, e.g., for a left turn. I do not see where a “limited scope” option would improve any situation or even be necessary. I think this bill stems from drivers complaining about being stuck behind a cyclist (oh the humanity) when clearly they think that cyclist should be on a sidepath a.k.a. “out of my way.”

It seems similar to the bicycle laws in NYC that require cyclists to use bike lanes whenever available, even if there are vehicles like delivery trucks or police cars parked or blocking the lane, and we do not need to go in that direction.

[dasgeh]

I’m happy to email legislators, but don’t have the bandwidth to figure out whom to email what when. Last week there was a handy email template to send Senators. Are there other such templates? Can they be put together? The updates are really awesome, but something that’s copy-paste-easy to send to legislators may get used (and I’d be happy to push a site with such things out to the NoVa family biking network, which are pretty valuable voters).

Thanks!

[scoot]

@bobco85 106896 wrote:

Mandatory Sidepath Bill? … My first reaction to reading this: “F*** that!”

You had other reactions beyond that?

Seriously, preaching to the choir here of course. But that bill is ludicrous.

[Terpfan]

@scoot 106962 wrote:

You had other reactions beyond that?

Seriously, preaching to the choir here of course. But that bill is ludicrous.

Thankfully that bill looks like some pet peeve type bill with no co-sponsors and no significant movement before. But this is the kind of thing where if the sponsor doesn’t want to yield an inch, someone ought to run against him just to prove a point.

[Author]

Posts