WABA Quick Release

Posts Tagged ‘law’

It should surprise no one that WABA has been working to improve traffic enforcement and the protection of bicyclists on the District’s roadways. We have worked countless hours on this issue and testified at two hearings held by the DC Council’s Committee on the Judiciary on this matter. Those hearings led to a finding by the Office of Police Complaints of deficiencies in the Department’s enforcement and relationship with cyclists and led MPD to appoint a liaison to the bicycling community to work with the District’s Bicycle Advisory Council.

These are positive steps, but there is much more to be done.

Often, when there is a major crash or a cyclist is cited for an infraction that he or she feels is undeserved, that cyclist or a family member calls WABA for advice. And often, when a WABA staffer or an attorney for the cyclist/family follows up on the facts of the case, we find that the story is quite different than the one contained in the police reports. In some cases, the facts presented in the reports or the citations issued simply do not match the stories of those on the scene.  In other cases, even as presented, the facts do not justify the conclusion drawn or the citation issued.

We have been working to make the case that as cycling grows in the District with the support of District programs and infrastructure, the District also has a responsibility to educate police officers on the application of traffic laws to bicyclists. Absent the physical protection of an automobile surrounding us, we rely on the protection of the law.

Unfortunately, we tend to encounter these enforcement errors on an individual basis, one at a time, as impacted cyclists contact us. We have worked to systematize this and get better data through the creation of our crash tracker survey, and it has been useful in getting more information on more crashes. But we are still working to show that the issue is not an occasional error by an occasional officer who misunderstands a provision. Rather, it is a systemic lack of appropriate training for all officers that needs to be rectified by a significant training effort.

Lacking the resources to launch a full analysis of every crash report related to bicycling, we recently chose to focus on a single regulation and review every citation for a violation. We submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to MPD and the DC Department of Motor Vehicles. Because the names and contact information of the cited party are not disclosed through the FOIA process, we attempted to select a provision in which we would not need to contact the cited party or follow up with witnesses to show errors. For this reason we selected the District’s “riding abreast” regulation, 18 DCMR 1201.7:

Persons riding upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or part of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a lane roadway, shall ride within a single lane.

Note that this law:

1. Cannot apply to a bicyclist riding alone;
2. Does not relate to the relationship between any bicycle and any non-bicycle vehicle.

We submitted our request seeking information on citations for violation of the “riding abreast” regulation on March 16. The statutory period for acknowledgment passed without response from MPD. On April 9, we followed up with MPD, noting the delay beyond the statutory limit, and also submitted an identical request with the District’s DMV, which oversees adjudication services. On April 19, we did receive acknowledgement of the initial request from MPD but have received no substantive response to date.

DMV, however, has provided both an initial response with overview data of the citation history in its records, as well as a more detailed supplemental response including individual Notices of Infraction. Both responses are below.

Dmv Foia Riding Abreast 1 of 2

Dmv Foia Riding Abreast 2 of 2

A very quick analysis reveals that not a single citation is supported by the officer’s description. In many cases no description is provided, so one cannot conclude whether the citation was justified. But in every case in which a description was provided, a violation of 18 DCMR 1201.7 is not described. Also, notably, there was no instance of two citations being issued at the same location, as might be expected for a law requiring two bicycles.

We continue to be concerned that officers entrusted with enforcing the laws that we need to help keep us safe on the roadways are not adequately trained on those laws or the application to cyclists. Wrongful citations have ramifications, and those ramifications can go well beyond the $25 fine or the frustration of being ticketed when the other party committed the unlawful act. Under the District’s contributory negligence system, insurers will frequently rely on a citation to deny coverage for injuries in a crash, forcing the cyclist who acted entirely within the law to run a complicated legal gauntlet of contesting the wrongful citation and winning, then taking legal action to compel the insurer to provide compensation for any injuries.

In short, bicyclists need MPD to get these citations right. We have seen recent cases in which the intervention of the officers appointed to act as liaisons to the cycling community–Lt. Breul and Commander Crane–have led to the withdrawal of improper citations. The documents provided reveal another such instance. But this sort of intervention is only available in the rare and clear-cut cases in which the officer’s description fails to match the citation as a matter of law. Intervention of this sort is unavailable when the dispute is a factual matter, such as which party has the duty to yield. In any event, the District cannot rely on one or two individual officers to catch the mistakes of many. MPD needs to improve its understanding and application of laws as applied to bicyclists, and that requires a real, robust, and funded training effort.

We hope that the District’s leadership will view this analysis broadly and conclude that we have a real, systemic problem with MPD training that needs a solution. In the absence of that, we hope that this law–which seems to do nothing but provide an invitation to wrongly cite bicyclists–will be amended or repealed to ensure that the wrongful application stops.

And finally, we hope that this analysis will spur others to help us to evaluate the application of laws to bicyclists and push for improvements. We focused on a single, seldom-used citation in this analysis. There are many other provisions that need exploration, but that will generate much more data and, potentially, require much more investigation and follow-up. If you are interested in focusing on these issues, WABA has applied for and received a $3,000 Advocacy Advance Rapid Response Grant to provide stipend(s) to support this campaign and our efforts to show the need for better training of law enforcement officers in the District.

If you are interested in helping WABA make our streets safer by helping us in this manner, send an email to advocacy@waba.org explaining the approach you would take or provisions of law of interest to you.

And please mark your calendar for the next hearing on bicyclist and pedestrian safety and enforcement before the DC Council Committee on the Judiciary: May 30th at 10am. It is important that as these hearings continue bicyclists continue to show up, tell their stories, and ensure that the Committee and the Council takes bicyclist safety seriously. To sign up to testify, contact Jessica Jacobs at jjacobs@dccouncil.us.

Prince George’s County Council voted unanimously to support becoming a more walkable and bikeable county this past week. Voting 9-0, Councilmembers passed the “Adequate Public Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities in Centers and Corridors” Act (CB-2-2012) which requires developers to build bicycle and pedestrian connections from their new developments to nearby destinations. This bill seeks to begin fixing the years of allowing street designs that were inhospitable to pedestrians and bicyclists.

This is giant step forward for Prince George’s County. The County has one of the highest rates of pedestrian deaths in the Maryland and has recently been dangerous and deadly for bicyclists too. The County Council, under the leadership of Councilmembers Olsen and Franklin, has made a statement about a future vision for the county and has recognized the need to begin building safe, connected and protected places to walk and bike.

WABA staff testified several times in support of this initiative and we are pleased with the unanimous result.  We would like to thank the Prince George’s County Council for providing county residents with expanded transportation choices. We would also like to thank our friends at the Coalition for Smarter Growth for their dedication to this initiative and their work in Prince George’s County.

An Opportunity to Help Motorists and Cyclists: A “Change-Lanes-and-Pass” Rule

My neighborhood has many polite drivers who wait behind me as I ride on two-lane MD-953, which has double yellow (no passing) lines the whole way. I am usually in the center of the 10-ft lane, pulling a trailer with my daughter.  Even when I don’t have the trailer, 95% of the drivers wait until the oncoming lane is clear, change lanes, and pass.  And when I am riding toward the right side of the lane for some reason, the vast majority still change lanes to pass.

Countless drivers have probably done you the same favor on another road. But they are technically breaking the law.

We think Maryland should legalize changing lanes to pass a bike riding in a no-passing zone. Not only are these drivers being safe, they actually enhance safety.

Why would cycling organizations initiate a reform that increases motorists’ rights? Aside from the fact that it probably will make us safer, cyclists probably understand this issue better than motorists. Cyclists have discussed many “rules of the road” that make sense for motor vehicles, but do not enhance safety when applied to bicycles. We would love to see those laws reformed. In some cases we may lack the political power to compel the changes we hope to see. But we probably do have the power to secure the right to change lanes and pass a bike when there is a double yellow line. So I think we should.

But Let’s Not Go Too Far: The “Partly-Cross-the-Line and Pass” Rule

By coincidence, some other Maryland advocates are considering a similar reform, but they would go even farther. Their idea is to allow drivers to cross the double yellow line to pass bikes, without the requirement to fully change lanes. This “partly-cross-the-line and pass” rule seems to be motivated by the observation that some cyclists ride far enough to the right so that a car barely has enough room to squeeze between the bike and the yellow line, and some drivers do. This rule would allow motorists to move only partly into the adjacent lane to pass the cyclist by the required three feet.

We prefer the requirement that the motorist fully change lanes. Motorists frequently report difficulty in gauging the three feet of space they are required to leave when passing, so why not apply the normal requirement that motorists change lanes? It is an existing behavior with clear rules and expectations. There is no need to encourage drivers to pass while occupying parts of two lanes.

Additionally, the requirement to change lanes before passing would discourage the idea of “squeezing” around others—whether the cyclist or a potential oncoming motorist. Finally, the State of Maryland will soon start erecting signs that say “Bicycles May Use Full Lane”. We think that “change lanes and pass” better reinforces the message of those signs, than partly crossing the line and sharing the lane.

Over the next few weeks, advocates in Maryland will be deciding which approach to take. While WABA took a major role last year in the promotion and passage of the Maryland vehicular homicide law, this year WABA intends to play a supporting role to Bike Maryland, which frequently leads statewide efforts to enhance cyclists’ rights through state legislation.

(Jim Titus is a member of WABA’s Board of Directors from Prince George’s County)

Yesterday, DC’s Committee on Environment, Public Works, and Transportation held a hearing on a number of pedestrian safety bills.  WABA provided testimony in support of:

1. Allowing bicyclists to proceed during the Lead Pedestrian Interval, and
2. Addressing roadway design speeds by adding appropriate traffic calming measures, rather than relying solely on speed limit enforcement to lower motor vehicle speeds.

Full testimony can be found below:
Cheh Ped Testimony (Signed)

For decades, cyclists have cherished their beautiful morning commutes and family bike rides through Rock Creek Park. Both the road and trail through the park provide two options for different types of cyclists.  Children and adults, less experienced riders, and those looking for a gentle and slow ride, all enjoy the multi-use path (which is in need of much improvement: read more here).  The roadway provides a space for bicyclists to travel faster (above 15 mph) to achieve a solid workout or arrive at their destination more quickly.  If the Senate passes the current draft transportation authorization bill in its current form, all bicyclists will be REQUIRED to use the Rock Creek Trail and all other sidepaths (within 100 yards) on Federal land roads with speed limits over 30 mph.

This is bad policy! Sign the petition, make your voice heard.

From the League of American Bicyclists:

“The draft of the Senate’s transportation authorization bill, S. 1813 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, includes language that would introduce a mandatory sidepath law on roads in our National Parks and other Federal lands. It requires cyclists on Federal lands to use a path or trail, instead of roads, if the speed limit is over 30 MPH and a trail exists within 100 yards, regardless of its condition or utility of the path. The provision sets a terrible precedent. Passing it would send the wrong message to transportation agencies that these policies are acceptable. Laws like this have been taken off the books in states over the past 30 years. This takes us in the wrong direction.”

Take a minute and sign the petition now to tell the Senate to remove the provision requiring bikes to use sidepaths!

District of Columbia Residents: Please note this petition is targeted at the entire Senate and not Senator specific.  Please sign!

Last week, WABA and a number of local cyclists testified in support of improved enforcement of laws to protect bicyclists, better training of police officers, communication between law enforcement officials and the cycling community, and the passage of the Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act of 2011.

Thanks to Councilmember Mendelson, Chair of the Committee, for holding the hearing, and to Committee members Cheh and Wells for attending the hearing and speaking strongly of the need for protection of cyclists.

For a recap of the hearing, see coverage from TBD, the Georgetown Patch, and DCist.

WABA’s public testimony is below.
November Bike-ped-Assault Hearing Testimony (Public)

To all who want better protection of bicyclists’ safety in the District, please join us next Wednesday as we–and your fellow cyclists–testify in support of both better enforcement to protect bicyclists and better laws to allow cyclists access to justice when they have been assaulted on the District’s streets.

The hearing will begin at 11am in Room 412 of the John A. Wilson Building at 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

More details on the hearing can be found HERE.

Background documents on police enforcement concerns are HERE.

Background documents on the Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act are HERE.

In preparation for the November 2nd hearing before the DC Council’s Committee on the Judiciary on Bicycle Enforcement and the Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act of 2011, WABA is hosting two open-house sessions in which those planning to testify can get assistance in drafting their testimony.  We will discuss the topics and answer questions, and we can help with tips for communicating clearly, staying within time limits, and generally making the most of your time before the Committee.

There will be a brief group discussion at each session, but participants are welcome to come and go anytime and are free to come discuss testimony without being present for the group discusion.

Open House #1: Thursday, October 27th, 3pm-7:30pm.  Group discussion at 6:30.

Open House #2: Monday, October 31, 10am-5pm.  Group discussion at noon.

Both sessions will be held at the WABA office at 2599 Ontario Rd., NW.

WABA needs your help to make a compelling case to the DC Council that more effort is needed to improve bicyclist safety.

In February, WABA–along with many of you–testified before the DC Council’s Committee on the Judiciary regarding the need for better enforcement of traffic laws to protect bicyclists.  The stories told that day were compelling and, in some cases heartbreaking,  and led Councilmember Mendelson to refer the issue to the Office of Police Complaints for investigation.  Earlier this month, the Office of Police Complaints released its reports verifying our claims and finding that, indeed, the DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is in need of improvements to its crash reporting and response systems and training regarding bicyclists.

Now, on November 2nd, we have the opportunity to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary again on the issue of bicyclist safety with this report in-hand to demand on-the-ground improvements and accountability and better protection of bicyclists on the District’s roadways.

This November 2 hearing gives cyclists who ride in the District the opportunity to address two separate, but deeply related, safety issues: (1) overall bicycle safety enforcement by DC MPD, and (2) the proposed Protection of Bicyclists from Assault bill that will help provide a civil cause of action allowing cyclists to fight back against those who intentionally attack and harass us on the roadways.

If you have a story to tell about either issue and want to help ensure that cyclists are protected on DC’s streets, we need you to come and tell that story to the Committee on the Judiciary on November 2nd.  We have put in many hundreds of hours of work to get this far, with a report officially stating that the police need to do more and a bill introduced by over half of the members of the Council.  But without a strong showing at the hearing, that progress can come to a hault.  The report can be filed on the shelf with others from the past.  Bills can die in committee.

If you want better enforcement, or if you want a better civil cause of action for assaulted cyclists, we need you to join us in saying so.

Those wishing to testify in person should contact Jessica Jacobs, either by telephone (202.724.8038) or via email (jjacobs@dccouncil.us).  Written testimony can also be submitted until November 16–though in-person testimony is likely to be more impactful and effective.  Full details for providing in-person or written testimony are available HERE.

If you do plan to provide testimony, we would appreciate your taking a moment (in addition to contacting Jessica at the Committee Office) to let us know by CLICKING HERE so that we have a sense of the likely turnout of bicyclists.

And finally, for those who would like to testify but would appreciate assistance in telling their stories more clearly and within the rules and time limits of the Council, WABA will be holding open-house sessions to help cyclists to testify more effectively.  Please email us at advocacy@waba.org to let us know if you would like our assistance in crafting your testimony.  The sessions will be scheduled once we have a better sense of the number of cyclists seeking this support.

The Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act, recently introduced in the DC Council and set for hearing on November 2, is meant to be a very specific response to the specific, but not uncommon, situation in which a bicyclist is assaulted or otherwise intentionally harassed on the roadway and is unable to seek redress through existing legal means. These cases generally produce no witnesses other than the bicyclist and the driver. Thus, there is no outside witness and, in many cases, no physical evidence. So if the assaulting motorist simply leaves the scene or denies the incident, there is little possibility of overcoming the relatively high criminal burden of proof. Thus, in most cases the U.S. Attorney declines to bring suit–leaving the cyclist assaulted or harassed, but with no criminal charges filed.

This leaves the option of the civil suit, and it is true that there is an existing civil tort cause of action. However, like most torts, the ability to secure legal representation to bring such a case depends–due to the contingency fee system–on the extent of the injury rather than the egregiousness of the conduct. This law will allow egregious conduct be to be addressed in civil court by changing the economic incentive for attorneys to represent assaulted cyclists.

It is true that the fee-shifting is relatively uncommon, but fee-shifting is an available mechanism that is frequently used in cases where injunctive relief is sought. Roadway assault cases like those at issue here–in which the attacks and harassment are often enabled by the inherent vulnerability of the bicyclist as compared to the motorist–have some interesting parallels to the circumstances that led to the body of civil rights law, where such fee-shifting is most common. Certainly the situations are not the same. It would be a stretch to argue that cyclists, as a group, fit the traditional definition of a protected class. But cyclists are, in the context of the roadway, inherently vulnerable, and it is that vulnerability–combined with an element of minority–that underlies and justifies the civil rights-style remedy proposed.

Within the roadway context specifically, bicyclists as a group possess the attributes of vulnerability and minority that have traditionally made fee-shifting, the primary attribute of this proposed law, appropriate.

The bill provides a means of civil access to justice to combat egregious behavior that is already illegal, but that current legal mechanisms do not penalize. Without it we maintain a system in which cyclist-victims continue to lack access to justice and those who engage in vehicular assault and harassment face no penalty.

The District’s leaders have continually, over a period of years, stated a commitment to encouraging bicycling as a safe and viable transportation alternative in the District. This demands not just infrastructure, though infrastructure is part of the equation, but also enforcement, and fundamental fairness on our roadways such that no class of users can be routinely victimized without redress.

Those first two elements–infrastructure and enforcement–are long-term, ongoing goals that will require long-term partnerships and ongoing accountability of government officials.

A significant step toward addressing the third can and should be made now, this year, by passing the Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act.  It should be.

To add your name to the list of supporters of this law to address harassment, assault, and battery of cyclists: CLICK HERE.