Maryland Legislative Roundup

Last year this blog featured about a dozen detailed posts on Maryland House Bill 363, which created a new crime of negligent vehicular homicide.  Cyclists, AAA, victims families, and the elected states attorneys all supported that bill for several years before it became law; and WABA did the leg work to ensure that those living in the district of the key Senate Committee Chairman contacted their legislator.

This year we've had fewer posts about legislation in Maryland, but activists are pushing a number of bills.  Below is a summary of the four most significant initiatives.  I'll warn you at the outset that I have a less favorable view on these bills than most of the activists, not because I disagree with the objectives but because I think several need work to strengthen their positive features and remove their negative features.  Be that as it may, if all of those bills pass, here is the result:

• There will no longer be a potential jail term for those who unintentionally kill someone due to driving that constitutes a substantial deviation from the duty of care, unless the driver is drunk, speeding by 30 mph, passing a school bus, or crossing the double yellow line.  SB 942 largely repeals HB 363 which we worked hard to enact last year.  I hope to prepare a more detailed post.  The proponents (several states attorneys) actually want stronger legislation, but they think that H.B. 363 was watered down too much last year.  They prefer to start over by repealing the bill enacted last year and then identifying a few crimes that would be negligent homicide.  (Cycling organizations, AAA, and victims families oppose this bill.)
• Police will be able to ticket people talking on a hand-held cell phone.  HB 104  (SB 217) makes using a hand-held mobile phone a primary offense, which allows police to  stop and cite offenders for that reason alone. This bill repeals provisions of law that require enforcement as a secondary offense of specified violations involving the use of a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle, and also applies whether or not the car is moving.
• Drivers will be allowed to cross the double yellow line to pass a bicyclist, as long as the passing distance is not greater than 3 feet  (HB. 1397).  I personally do not like this bill.
  • I think that if we are going to legalize something alot of motorists do, we should also legalize something alot of cyclists do (e.g. rolling through a stop sign). 
  • It seems to repeal the cyclist's right to take the lane by riding in the center of the lane, since it lets a driver squeeze alongside the cyclist at a distance of three feet; I'm not sure whether an R4-11 sign would restore that right.  A previous post by WABA had recommended allowing drivers to cross the double yellow lines, if they leave a much larger passing distance (e.g. change lanes to pass).  The differing perspectives by cyclists were not synthesized to create a bill that resolves all the outstanding issues.  
  • The bill also allows drivers preparing to make a left turn to cross the double yellow line and salmon in the oncoming lane for a few hundred feet. 
• Cyclists will be able to ride on all sidewalks except where the local government has specifically prohibited it.   I think H.B 946 needs to be revised because as written, it will create an unneeded administrative burden on jurisdictions that have decided not to legalize cycling without specifically prohibiting it (since it was already prohibited).  In Prince Georges County, DPW&T has authority and intends to work with cyclists to administratively legalize riding where it is safe.  If “prohibited” was changed to “prohibited or regulated” then that problem would be solved and I would support the bill. 

Advocates are working on two other changes worth noting, but I think that they may be too late to get a bill introduced this year. 

• John Wetmore, who produces “Perils for Pedestrians” is working with Senator Frosh (D-Bethesda) on making utility easements more available for trails.  Maryland already has a statute that relieves some owners of trails from liability, and that law could certainly be extended to utilities.  But I doubt that would be sufficient to make Pepco or BG&E enthusiastic about trails.  I personally think that to be effective, the law would have to give the utilities substantial financial incentives such as, for example,  reducing the assessment of utility real estate by an amount equal to what such an easement would otherwise cost to buy.  I think it would also be possible to require public access on all new utility easements that are acquired without running afoul of the takings clause.  But for existing utility easements, compensation would be required.
• The key advocates for MoBike are looking for a sponsor of a bill to require MDTA to allow bikes to ride on the shoulders of the Intercounty Connector.

 (Jim Titus is on WABA's Board of Directors and represents Prince Georges County of the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (MBPAC).  He tends to wait 4-8 hours after a post is uploaded before replying to comments.   The opinions expressed here are Jim's alone and do not represent the views of either WABA or MBPAC.)

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2012/03/maryland-legislative-roundup.html