New DC Law Treats Cyclists More Like Pedestrians

[KLizotte]

New Law Treats Cyclists More Like Pedestrians

Posted by Aaron Wiener on Oct. 21, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Washington City Paper

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2013/10/21/new-law-treats-cyclists-more-like-pedestrians/#more-31795

Good news, D.C. cyclists: Much of the illegal behavior you’ve been engaging in is about to become legal.

Ever find yourself impatient after a long red light and crossing the intersection when the pedestrian light flashes to go, but before the main one does? Technically, you can’t do that—but soon you’ll be able to.

Like those four-way pedestrian signals in Chinatown and Columbia Heights that let you cross the street on two wheels while drivers wait? Well, you’re supposed to wait with them—but not for much longer.

Didn’t bother installing a bell on your bike? You’ve been breaking the law—but soon you’ll be able to make do with just your booming voice.

On Thursday, Mayor Vince Gray signed the Bicycle Safety Amendment Act of 2013, which will soon become law unless our congressional overlords decide to object for some reason. The bill states:

(a) A bicyclist may cross at an intersection while following the pedestrian traffic control signal for the bicyclist’s direction of travel unless otherwise directed by traffic signs or traffic control devices.
(b) A bicyclist may cross an intersection where a leading pedestrian interval is used.

Likewise, the bill, introduced by Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh and Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells, stipulates that cyclists will be treated like pedestrians in two other ways: They’ll no longer have to ride armed with bells, provided their voices can carry for at least 100 feet, and there are newly created driving infraction categories for failure to yield to a bicyclist and for colliding with a bicycle.

Additionally, if street construction projects block bike or pedestrian paths, the city is required to provide a suitable detour.

Topic

[jrenaut]

@KLizotte 67170 wrote:

Additionally, if street construction projects block bike or pedestrian paths, the city is required to provide a suitable detour.

I’ve been talking to Shane Farthing and whoever was running the WABA Twitter account yesterday about this. Depending on who you ask, the wording here changes. I’ve seen it worded the way it is here, and it’s now my understanding that this wording is not only misleading, but really far from what the law actually does. What the law actually does is let the mayor decide whether DCRA handles this as part of issuing the permits, or whether DDOT handles this as part of rules of public space usage. So it doesn’t establish as law that there must be a detour, it just sort of starts the ball rolling on how to make that happen.

So, my guess is we’ll have some sort of guidance in 8-12 months, 5 months of everyone ignoring the guidance with no consequences, and then sometime in mid-2015 you’ll see a few fines handed out.

[KLizotte]

I’m ambivalent about this law because I think it is really going to confuse motorists and peds about what we should or should not be doing. It doesn’t help that VA and MD have their own set of laws. It’s unfortunate that there isn’t a consistent, well thought set of *national* laws so everyone is on the same page.

Just last night I was taking the lane and waiting for a light to change when the guy behind me kept blowing his horn and gesturing that I belonged on the sidewalk. *sigh*

[mstone]

@KLizotte 67191 wrote:

I’m ambivalent about this law because I think it is really going to confuse motorists and peds about what we should or should not be doing.
…
Just last night I was taking the lane and waiting for a light to change when the guy behind me kept blowing his horn and gesturing that I belonged on the sidewalk.

I don’t think it’s going to confuse anyone that wasn’t going to be confused (or claim to be confused) anyway. E.g., it won’t matter a whit to banging-on-the-horn guy, nor would anything else short of you not existing. It will hopefully prevent police harassment of cyclists who weren’t endangering anyone anyway.

And I suggest you don’t read the comments, they’re mostly by banging-on-the-horn-guy, who doesn’t care what the law says as much as “cyclists”.

Oh, and everyone should have a bell.

[jrenaut]

@mstone 67198 wrote:

Oh, and everyone should have a bell.

Agreed, I put the bell on for ME, not for anyone else. But, like helmets, thinking everyone should have one and thinking that the law should require it are two very different things.

[consularrider]

@jrenaut 67200 wrote:

Agreed, I put the bell on for ME, not for anyone else. But, like helmets, thinking everyone should have one and thinking that the law should require it are two very different things.

Also agree. I find that I am more likely to use the bell since I tend to get a dry throat and can barely croak out “passing on your left.” I guess that’s just and indication that I need to drink water more frequently on my rides.

[nikki_d]

@mstone 67198 wrote:

Oh, and everyone should have a bell.

I find the bell a lot less effective on city streets than I do on trails. On the streets, yelling “Hey dumba@@! Pay f—-ing attention!” is much more effective. Especially with the earbud wearing, electronic device staring, federal zombies that ALWAYS walk in front of me on 4th St SW into my right away of way because somehow that crosswalk at 4th & C St SW makes them invincible and the “don’t walk” certainly does not apply to them. They don’t notice bells at all. (No, I am not bitter about this in the least either.)

[mstone]

@nikki_d 67428 wrote:

I find the bell a lot less effective on city streets than I do on trails. On the streets, yelling “Hey dumba@@! Pay f—-ing attention!” is much more effective. Especially with the earbud wearing, electronic device staring, federal zombies that ALWAYS walk in front of me on 4th St SW into my right away of way because somehow that crosswalk at 4th & C St SW makes them invincible and the “don’t walk” certainly does not apply to them. They don’t notice bells at all. (No, I am not bitter about this in the least either.)

To be clear, the purpose of the bell is for politely passing; it should not be considered an emergency warning device. For that, perhaps an airzound?

[nikki_d]

@mstone 67429 wrote:

To be clear, the purpose of the bell is for politely passing; it should not be considered an emergency warning device. For that, perhaps an airzound?

Just as many bicyclists appear to be using earbuds and/ or phones these days, sadly.

At one point, I thought air horns were specifically prohibited by law on bikes. But the regulation appears to just prohibit sirens. I don’t know where I got that idea from. A loud horn would certainly make my morning far more entertaining

[dasgeh]

There are times when bells are more effective, and times when they’re less, depending on ambient noise. But at least they’re not required!

[PotomacCyclist]

I had read that one problem with the current regulation re bells is that is was mostly used by police to target suspicious-looking characters, not to promote and enforce traffic safety. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of anyone getting stopped for not having a bell, except when the police had a suspicious feeling about the cyclist for other reasons (warranted or not).

[mstone]

@PotomacCyclist 67454 wrote:

I had read that one problem with the current regulation re bells is that is was mostly used by police to target suspicious-looking characters, not to promote and enforce traffic safety. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of anyone getting stopped for not having a bell, except when the police had a suspicious feeling about the cyclist for other reasons (warranted or not).

Correct. This is the problem with such “safety” laws: the chance of the police enforcing it, consistently, is near zero, but the potential for abusive enforcement is fairly high. In some cases it’s still useful to enact legislation even in the absence of predicted enforcement, for the purpose of establishing liability, but I don’t see that in this case.

[Author]

Replies