Please support these two bills (Washington: 2013, school, closing)

[brooklynborndad]

Small steps can help bicycling in Virginia - Greater Greater Washington

one would make it unlawful to follow a bike too closely (its currently unlawful to follow another motor vehicle too closely, but not a bike)

The other would require the exercise of care when opening the driver side door of a parked vehicle - this would have safety benefits for drivers, but especially for cyclists.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Small steps can help bicycling in Virginia - Greater Greater Washington

one would make it unlawful to follow a bike too closely (its currently unlawful to follow another motor vehicle too closely, but not a bike)

The other would require the exercise of care when opening the driver side door of a parked vehicle - this would have safety benefits for drivers, but especially for cyclists.

I would support the second proposal. The full text of the proposal follows:

818.1. Opening and closing motor vehicle doors; penalty.
No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side adjacent to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so. Nor shall the person keep the vehicle door open for longer than is reasonably necessary to load or unload passengers.

A violation of this section shall constitute a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of no more than $100. No demerit points shall be awarded by the Commissioner for a violation of this section.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to any law enforcement officer, school guard, firefighter, or member of a rescue squad engaged in the performance of his duties.

The first proposal, as far as I can tell, does not appear to be the subject of a current legislative proposal in Virginia. While I would not want cars rear-ending bikes, I would not support legislation that imposes a legal duty on drivers to maintain a "reasonable distance" from a cyclist riding a bike on a road designed primarily for cars, at least not without a better understanding as to whether it might also be illegal for the cyclist to be on the road in the first place, while traveling at a snail-like pace, or some explanatory guidance as to what a "reasonable distance" means. Standards based on concepts of "due care" are hard to folllow when people find themselves in unanticipated, unpleasant situations where they really aren't sure what's appropriate for them to do under the circumstances.

[spencgr]

The article states they were voted on last year and both failed. Is someone re-proposing them?

[JD984]

Originally Posted by spencgr

The article states they were voted on last year and both failed. Is someone re-proposing them?

I read the materials as suggesting that Chap Petersen has reproposed the second one - the "dooring" bill - and that it is coming up for some type of consideration latesr this month.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

The first proposal, as far as I can tell, does not appear to be the subject of a current legislative proposal in Virginia. While I would not want cars rear-ending bikes, I would not support legislation that imposes a legal duty on drivers to maintain a "reasonable distance" from a cyclist riding a bike on a road designed primarily for cars, at least not without a better understanding as to whether it might also be illegal for the cyclist to be on the road in the first place, while traveling at a snail-like pace,.

Bikes are allowed on all roads in virginia except access limited highways and a few other designated routes. Cyclists are expected to ride as far to the right as possible, but may take the lane where their safety requires it. Its not permitted, AFAIK, for cyclists to deliberately obstruct other vehicles - JUST as its not permitted for motor vehicles to do so. In neither case is there a statutory minimum speed (again limited access highways excepted). Enforcement is therefore at the discretion of local law enforcement, and decision on what is actually unreasonable, up to local traffic courts.

In any case, I do not see that the occasional cyclist unreasonably taking the lane at a slow speed justifies following too closely, any more than a motor vehicle going too slowly justifies tailgating.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

The first proposal, as far as I can tell, does not appear to be the subject of a current legislative proposal in Virginia.

it looks like Del Lopez is planning on introducing it


Ask Del. Comstock to Stop Blocking Road Safety In Virginia | Blacknell.net

note well


"Virginia appears to be the only state where bicyclists are excluded from “following too close” provisions;"



for discussion of last years bill

http://novasmartcycling.blogspot.com...ng-points.html

2) Bill Summary: This bill would merely delete a single word (i.e., the second mention of “motor”) in § 46.2-816 of the Code of Virginia, to better conform the Code of Virginia to the Uniform Vehicle Code and to the traffic codes of other states.
§ 46.2-816. Following too closely. Currently, this Code section applies only to motor vehicles following other motor vehicles, trailers, or semi-trailers. The proposed modification would extend the same standard of legal protection to the drivers and passengers of all vehicles allowed to operate on the roadway, including bicycles, mopeds, and animal-drawn vehicles.


this is the current language

"§ 46.2-816. Following too closely.
The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another motor 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. "


the new language, if Del Lopez reintroduces the bill and it is passed, would be

§ 46.2-816. Following too closely.
The driver of a motor 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.

[phrekyos]

What a joke. Cyclists already don't follow the existing laws. They run stop signs and red lights whenever they feel like it, they ride anywhere on the street and pass in unsafe places and at unsafe times, they ride on the sidewalks and nearly run people over. Then there's the biggest problem - they obstruct traffic with their painfully low speed. They can't even keep up with the lowest speed limits (25mph).

Until cyclists follow the existing laws that apply to everybody on the road and start showing drivers of automobiles a little respect and common courtesy, I wouldn't even consider any special treatment for them under the law.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Bikes are allowed on all roads in virginia except access limited highways and a few other designated routes. Cyclists are expected to ride as far to the right as possible, but my take the lane where their safety requires it. Its not permitted, AFAIK, for cyclists to deliberately obstruct other vehicles - JUST as its not permitted for motor vehicles to do so. In neither case is there a statutory minimum speed (again limited access highways excepted). Enforcement is therefore at the discretion of local law enforcement, and decision on what is actually unreasonable, up to local traffic courts.

In any case, I do not see that the occasional cyclist unreasonably taking the lane at a slow speed justifies following too closely, any more than a motor vehicle going too slowly justifies tailgating.


I would not expect law enforcement here to hand out tickets to someone closely following a cyclist taking the lane going 6 miles an hour. Where a cyclist is taking the lane legitimately (where traffic conditions or road surface conditions make staying to the right inadvisable) and is going at more typical road cyclist pace of 10 to 20 MPH, I would hope to see it enforced.

Interesting - but it really underscores my point, which is that I wouldn't favor new statutory provisions to address this without clarification and reiteration of what is expected of both cyclists and drivers. For example, I'd want assurances that local law enforcement and traffic courts could just as readily hand out tickets and fines to cyclists who made unreasonable decisions to "take the lane" when they could have ridden further right instead. See prior comment by phrekyos.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by phrekyos

What a joke. Cyclists already don't follow the existing laws. They run stop signs and red lights whenever they feel like it, they ride anywhere on the street and pass in unsafe places and at unsafe times, they ride on the sidewalks and nearly run people over. Then there's the biggest problem - they obstruct traffic with their painfully low speed. They can't even keep up with the lowest speed limits (25mph).

Until cyclists follow the existing laws that apply to everybody on the road and start showing drivers of automobiles a little respect and common courtesy, I wouldn't even consider any special treatment for them under the law.

this is not special treatment - its extending the SAME protection motor vehicles get - as is the law, apparently, in the other 49 states and the district of columbia.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Interesting - but it really underscores my point, which is that I wouldn't favor new statutory provisions to address this without clarification and reiteration of what is expected of both cyclists and drivers. For example, I'd want assurances that local law enforcement and traffic courts could just as readily hand out tickets and fines to cyclists who made unreasonable decisions to "take the lane" when they could have ridden further right instead. See prior comment by phrekyos.

lots of drivers break the law - we do not attempt to punish drivers as a class by denying them the protection of laws against tailgating.

If some cyclists break the law, punish those cyclists. Do not punish cyclists as a class, including law abiding cyclists, by making practices that endanger the lives of cyclists lawful.