Virginia Legislation Action Thread

[eminva]

Mark, just for clarification, is SB 1060 the Senate version of HB 1950, to which we alerted about a week or two ago?

Thanks.

Liz

[Mark Blacknell]

@eminva 41382 wrote:

Mark, just for clarification, is SB 1060 the Senate version of HB 1950, to which we alerted about a week or two ago?

No. HB1950 simply addressed following too closely (with slightly different language*). SB 1060 addresses following too closely AND giving at least three feet clearance when passing. Ideally, we’d get SB1060 passed in both houses. Unfortunately, the 3 foot language seems to stir up great opposition in the House of Delegates.

*SB1060 would prohibit a motor vehicle from following another vehicle too closely. HB1950 would prohibit a vehicle from following another vehicle too closely. The problem? Is that the language of HB1950 could very well be construed (and was, by some of the delegates that voted for it) as prohibiting drafting/pacelines. Srsly.

[Mark Blacknell]

Unfortunately, Senator Favola’s SB959 passed the full Senate yesterday, with a unanimous vote in support of it. Unless it fails in the House of Delegates, it will become law. Keep in mind that it, as poorly considered as the bill is, it still requires passage of a local ordinance to bring into effect. So there are a number of points at which this can be addressed in the future.

Remember, it’s an unnecessary bill (cyclists and pedestrians already have a duty to not enter the road in disregard of approaching traffic) and creates an opportunity for revenue-raising harassment of cyclists who fail to put a foot down at every stop sign (something Loudoun County already engages in). And by all reports, Loudoun County was lobbying heavily for it, so you can be sure they’re going to try to recover their costs on the W&OD this summer.

The identical bill in the House is Del. Greason’s HB2217. We’ll let you know as soon as we see/need action on that.

[Mark Blacknell]

Sen. Chap Petersen’s SB736 (here, and the subject of this thread) passed the Senate with a vote of 23-17. The split vote should make us concerned about passage in the House. In fact, one of the Senators voting against it was the same Senator that is sponsoring the following too closely/3 foot bill!

There’s nothing more to be done about it in the Senate, but it will be a tough one in the House. We’ll especially need the help and support of the following three Delegates (who sit on the Transportation Subcommittee #2):

• Del. Richard Anderson (R-Woodbridge)
• Del. Barbara Comstock (R- Fairfax/Loudon/McLean)
• Del. Randall Minchew (R- Leesburg)

We’re going to need you to flip through your Virginia address book and ask friends who are constituents of these particular Delegates to speak up on behalf of cyclists everywhere.

[Mark Blacknell]

Del. Alfonso Lopez’s HB1950 passed out of committee and is now awaiting a vote in the full House. This bill provides that: “The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of both vehicles and the traffic on, and conditions of, the highway at the time.”

As I noted above, some of the Delegates are of the curious opinion that this language would prohibit drafting/pacelines (the idea being that one cyclist following another cyclist closely is not “reasonable and prudent”). I don’t think that’s the case at all, but I’m up for finding out. So what we need on this is:

1) If you live in Virginia, let your Delegate know that you need his/her vote on this, now (we don’t know when it’s up for a vote, but it could be most any time).

2) If you live in Del. Lopez’s district (Arlington/Alexandria), let him know you appreciate his making this happen. Feedback matters.

[Mark Blacknell]

There are, of course, other bills that indirectly impact cyclists (say, improved enforcement of texting laws or even the big transportation package), but I’ll stay focused on the bills above. If someone identifies another bill and wants to make a case for action by fellow forum members on it, that’s certainly welcome on this thread.

[eminva]

Okay, Mark, you are keeping us busy today, but I think I did what you wanted:

-Sent an email to the three Northern Virginians on the Senate Transportation Committee (with cc to my senator) for recommended action on SB 1060 and SB 731

-Sent an email to my own delegate for recommended action on HB 1950

-Am awaiting further instructions on SB 959

-SB 736 — am I awaiting further instructions, or should I send an email to the three Northern Virginia delegates identified above now?

Thanks.

Liz

[Mark Blacknell]

Thanks, Liz. One of the tougher things about managing advocacy campaigns is supporter burnout. Unfortunately, Virginia’s compressed legislative calendar just compounds that (this isn’t nearly as a big an issue when it comes to DC or Maryland).

And yes, you’re correct on everything above. There’s no corresponding House Bill for SB736 yet, so best to just hold until there is (that’ll happen after crossover – February 5th, I believe).

[Terpfan]

Glad to see HB1950 passed out of committee. Isn’t that the one that died in committee last year? I reached out to some local legislators and made a non-traditional appeal on the matter that I hoped may catch their attention.

[mstone]

Please keep us updated on the house response to SB959. As I’ve mentioned in other threads, I think that one has the most potential impact to cyclists, walkers, joggers, wheelchair users, and anyone else who uses a road with something other than a car. Do you know if the Loudon Sheriff’s office presented evidence in form of citations for speeding, failure to yield the right of way in a crosswalk, entering a crosswalk in disregard of traffic, etc., that they have utilized existing law to improve safety at those crosswalks, that the existing law is insufficient, and that a dramatic change in the expectation of road users at crosswalks is necessary? I suspect that much more could be done to slow down traffic at those crosswalks and increase the level of caution that motorists exhibit when approaching a crosswalk so that they can properly yield the right of way if necessary.

[sjclaeys]

Regarding SB959/HB2217 (the trail stop sign bill), I realize that I am playing arm-chair quarterback, but it seems that the best way to manage it is to either: 1) get it sent back for reconsideration after a study is done on how to make crossings more safe; or 2) add on additional amendments to either improve the bill or mitigate its abuse, such as establishing a 15 or 20 mph maximum speed for motor vehicles at crossings, requiring motor vehicles to yield when pedestrians/users are at a crossing (not just in a crossing), requiring local law enforcement to provide public reporting on actions taken against trail users and motor vehicles at crossings.

[Mark Blacknell]

I’m pleased to report that SB1060 (following too closely/three feet to pass) sailed out of committee (14-0) and is now before the full Senate for a vote. The moped bill died (a sad and slow speed death).

[Megabeth]

By the way, I have to give a shout-out to the woman that answered the phone at Senator Favola’s office this morning. I’m sure she heard from a lot of us today, but she made me feel like she was genuinely interested in what I had to say nor did she rush me. She took down my information and repeated it to make sure she had it written correctly and would pass it along. And, she gave a hearty thank you for calling. I hung up from the call just feeling happier about my day. I unfortunately didn’t get her name, but wanted to say a public kudos to her.

[acc]

To be honest, I was happy to write the first four emails about bike issues. But I had to think long and hard about the moped. I mean sure, who doesn’t get a 2:00 am craving for a half-smoke and a Slurpee that’s when pulling the moped out for a ride to 7-11 makes perfect sense. On the other hand, you don’t need a license to ride one, a loophole I’m sure my elderly mother will be only too happy to exploit in the near future. But because e-bikes are on the horizon, and alternative transportation is something we are trying to find, I caved.

[jnva]

@acc 41456 wrote:

To be honest, I was happy to write the first four emails about bike issues. But I had to think long and hard about the moped. I mean sure, who doesn’t get a 2:00 am craving for a half-smoke and a Slurpee that’s when pulling the moped out for a ride to 7-11 makes perfect sense. On the other hand, you don’t need a license to ride one, a loophole I’m sure my elderly mother will be only too happy to exploit in the near future. But because e-bikes are on the horizon, and alternative transportation is something we are trying to find, I caved.

It’s a loophole that I am happily “exploiting” and I’m not a senior citizen. I’m not allowed to ride my ebike on the custis, and this bill would prevent me from riding on lee hwy. how am I supposed to get to work??? BS!

By the way, thank you. I sent an email voicing my opposition.

[Author]

Posts