For Virginia cyclists, Fw: 2005 VBF Legislative Agenda



M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
We just got this from Allen of the Virginia Bicycling Federation today. I'm
passing it on to y'all.

Matt O.


Allen J. Muchnick wrote:

> Below is my recent statement to the Arlington County delegation to the
> Virginia General Assembly. Many state legislators will hold similar
> local public hearings for constituent input shortly before the
> January 12th start of the 45-day legislative session, and statements
> supporting bicycling issues are helpful and encouraged.
>
> We will need the strong support of bicyclists throughout Virginia to
> pass the four bills mentioned in my statement, particularly the one
> calling for regional VDOT bicycle advisory committees. None of these
> bills have actually been filed to date, so there are no bill numbers
> yet, but you can refer to them by their likely patron: Delegates
> Ebbin, Hargrove, and Suit.
>
> Stay tuned for updates in the coming weeks.
>
> Allen Muchnick, President
> Virginia Bicycling Federation
> PO Box 5621, Arlington VA 22205
> [email protected]
> 703-271-0895
> http://vabike.org
>
> ==========
>
>
> PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARLINGTON COUNTY DELEGATION
> FOR THE 2005 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
> ARLINGTON COUNTY BOARD ROOM
> JANUARY 4, 2005
> REMARKS OF ALLEN J. MUCHNICK, PRESIDENT
> VIRGINIA BICYCLING FEDERATION
>
> Good evening and happy new year. I'm Allen Muchnick, president of the
> Virginia Bicycling Federation (VBF) and a Legislative Contact Team
> volunteer with the Virginia Conservation Network and the Virginia
> League of Conservation Voters.
>
> VBF deeply appreciates the strong and long-term support of Arlington's
> legislators for better bicycling and walking conditions, including the
> effective work of former Delegates Almand, Darner, and Connally. Even
> when not passed, several bicycle-related bills that Senator Whipple
> patroned in 2002 and 2003 soon produced the reforms intended,
> including recent VDOT policies that allow standalone pedestrian and
> bicycling improvements with highway construction funds and that
> dedicate 10% of Virginia's Hazard Elimination Safety funds to a new
> pedestrian and bicycle safety program. Also, nearly all of the
> bicycling law reforms that Senator Whipple patroned for us in 2003
> were successfully enacted in 2003 or 2004.
>
> Last March, the Commonwealth Transportation Board adopted a
> far-ranging _Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian
> Accommodations_. While this new policy is significant as a statement
> of explicit intent, VDOT still lacks the robust bicycle and
> pedestrian program needed to create a state highway system that
> adequately supports bicycling and walking.
>
> A month ago, the Virginia Bicycling Federation wrote to Transportation
> Secretary Clement to ask that VDOT establish both statewide and
> regional bicycle advisory committees that a) meet regularly, b) are
> comprised mostly of representatives selected by bicycling
> organizations, and c) have strong citizen leadership. Bills to
> require bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees for each VDOT
> districts were introduced in 1997 (SJR 311, Norment) and 2002 (HB
> 806, Almand), but only the Hampton Roads District has voluntarily
> established such a citizen advisory committee. Meanwhile, the
> statewide bicycle advisory committee that VDOT established
> voluntarily in 1989 has met very infrequently over the past decade
> and has held only two regular meetings since October 2000.
>
> I am happy to report that Delegate Ebbin has prefiled a bill to
> require VDOT bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees and that
> Secretary Clement has replied to our letter by writing "we would be
> favorably disposed to consider such legislation". We consider such
> legislation our top bicycle and pedestrian priority for the 2005
> session.
>
> I'm presently aware of three other bicycle-related bills that may be
> filed for the 2005 session. Delegate Ebbin has prefiled a bill to
> prohibit opening a motor vehicle door in a manner that endangers or
> impedes oncoming traffic. This provision from the national Uniform
> Vehicle Code would help protect bicyclists, especially as Arlington
> and other localities create bike lanes within the door zone of parked
> motor vehicles.
>
> Delegate Hargrove was prefiled a bill to require tail lights on
> bicycles operated after dark on highways posted for more than 30 MPH.
> This measure should reduce the incidence of nighttime rear-end
> cycling crashes, a crash type with about a 25% fatality rate.
>
> Delegate Suit will reportedly file a bill to provide a Virginia
> income tax credit for bicycle commuters. Under federal law, bicycle
> commuters do not receive any tax-exempt subsidy for employer-paid
> commuting expenses such as for parking fees or for transit or vanpool
> fares.
>
> We ask that you support these bills and consider becoming a co-patron.
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and best wishes for the
> legislative session.
 
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We just got this from Allen of the Virginia Bicycling Federation today.
> I'm
> passing it on to y'all.


The only question I might have on these proposed bills is below:

>
> Matt O.
>
>>
>> I'm presently aware of three other bicycle-related bills that may be
>> filed for the 2005 session. Delegate Ebbin has prefiled a bill to
>> prohibit opening a motor vehicle door in a manner that endangers or
>> impedes oncoming traffic. This provision from the national Uniform
>> Vehicle Code would help protect bicyclists, especially as Arlington
>> and other localities create bike lanes within the door zone of parked
>> motor vehicles.


If bike lanes are indeed built in parked car door zones (bad practice, but
all too common), and a law is passed to "prohibit opening a motor vehicle
door in a manner that endangers or impedes oncoming traffic", then cyclists
must be explicitly identified as 'traffic'.

Yes, bicycles are 'vehicles', as outlined in the definitions, but a hostile
court could, as in Illinois, declare that they are 'not intended users', and
as such, not 'traffic'.

The wording is the key.

Pete
 
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:43:57 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> We just got this from Allen of the Virginia Bicycling Federation today.
>> I'm
>> passing it on to y'all.

>
>The only question I might have on these proposed bills is below:
>
>>
>> Matt O.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm presently aware of three other bicycle-related bills that may be
>>> filed for the 2005 session. Delegate Ebbin has prefiled a bill to
>>> prohibit opening a motor vehicle door in a manner that endangers or
>>> impedes oncoming traffic. This provision from the national Uniform
>>> Vehicle Code would help protect bicyclists, especially as Arlington
>>> and other localities create bike lanes within the door zone of parked
>>> motor vehicles.

>
>If bike lanes are indeed built in parked car door zones (bad practice, but
>all too common), and a law is passed to "prohibit opening a motor vehicle
>door in a manner that endangers or impedes oncoming traffic", then cyclists
>must be explicitly identified as 'traffic'.
>
>Yes, bicycles are 'vehicles', as outlined in the definitions, but a hostile
>court could, as in Illinois, declare that they are 'not intended users', and
>as such, not 'traffic'.
>
>The wording is the key.
>
>Pete


Yes, and as we know too well, some Va cities have that freaking law that
says if there is a MUP nearby that cyclists can't ride on the streets. I
know it's the case in Newport News, but AFAIK nowhere else.

The problem with the dunderhead, but well-meaning lawmakers, the effect of
this is -not- as intended. What happens is the MUP/MUT or widened sidewalks
cause all sorts of hazards for the riders, and if you have an accident in
the street adjacent, then LEO is just as likely to cite you for not
following that law, even if it's not your fault, as they'd do the right
thing. It just leaves the cyclist again in the class of not belonging
anywhere, no legal protection, and at fault if he runs into a jogger with
headphones on who suddenly dodges to the side.

The best plan is the super wide roads that are available in certain places
in Va Beach allowing more than adequate space for drivers and cyclists, and
eliminating the hazards of the bikepath (drivers not expecting you to enter
from the side, moms with three-wide baby carriages, and two dogs on a
leash, <g>)

jj
 
"jj" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:43:57 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> We just got this from Allen of the Virginia Bicycling Federation today.
>>> I'm
>>> passing it on to y'all.

>>
>>The only question I might have on these proposed bills is below:
>>
>>>
>>> Matt O.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm presently aware of three other bicycle-related bills that may be
>>>> filed for the 2005 session. Delegate Ebbin has prefiled a bill to
>>>> prohibit opening a motor vehicle door in a manner that endangers or
>>>> impedes oncoming traffic. This provision from the national Uniform
>>>> Vehicle Code would help protect bicyclists, especially as Arlington
>>>> and other localities create bike lanes within the door zone of parked
>>>> motor vehicles.

>>
>>If bike lanes are indeed built in parked car door zones (bad practice, but
>>all too common), and a law is passed to "prohibit opening a motor vehicle
>>door in a manner that endangers or impedes oncoming traffic", then
>>cyclists
>>must be explicitly identified as 'traffic'.
>>
>>Yes, bicycles are 'vehicles', as outlined in the definitions, but a
>>hostile
>>court could, as in Illinois, declare that they are 'not intended users',
>>and
>>as such, not 'traffic'.
>>
>>The wording is the key.
>>
>>Pete

>
> Yes, and as we know too well, some Va cities have that freaking law that
> says if there is a MUP nearby that cyclists can't ride on the streets. I
> know it's the case in Newport News, but AFAIK nowhere else.


Strolling through www.municode.com , I see that Hampton ( Sec. 6-28) and
Fredericksburg ( Sec. 12-197. (d)) have the same type of ordinance.

Chesapeake has a weird (dangerous) provision.
Sec. 50-10. (b) No person shall ride a bicycle other than on the righthand
side of the road paving as close as conditions permit, and bicycle shall be
kept in single file when two or more are operating as a group.

No provision to avoid potholes, doors, whatever. Right edge, or else.

Pete