Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes

Response: RE: Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes (reply) (Still not supportive)
At MBPAC Discussion on Legislative Issues In discussing this issue:
Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes
In order to encourage use of designated bicycle lanes by bicyclists and to improve the safety of those dedicated lanes for bicyclists, Bike Maryland proposes that a state-wide statute be enacted to prohibit drivers from driving, stopping or parking in dedicated bicycle lanes.

I was surprised to learn that MBPAC's initial position is to not support this legislation as it can be done with signs like these:
image

I suggested that it would be cheaper to sign where parking is permitted (like never.) The counter argument was but "No Parking" signs are cheap, something like $40 each (assuming we already have a pole to hang them on, otherwise it is more like $200 a piece including labor.) Well lets look at that. By my estimate Baltimore Metro (just a small part of the State) needs minimally about 300 miles of bike lanes to truly have a bicycles as transportation network just in the urban designated areas. So let's do the math: 2 signs per block * 2 sides of the road * 10 blocks per mile (in the city that's a higher number) * 300 miles * $40 a sign = $480,000. (Can I round that up to a half a million?) Not to mention under the State's current policies they will not allow Federal funding for signs. Even SHA gave up marking shoulders as bike lanes because of the expense of signs.

My argument I presented at the meeting was: what about bike lanes next to parking like in Roland Park (Starbucks), you can't sign "No Parking" there. I was countered with: but isn't double parking illegal? Which I countered with: but police need due cause to give tickets, if the cars are not blocking the car travel lane is there due cause to give a ticket without this law?

I feel very strongly that the facility that accommodates both cyclists and parking is a shoulder not a bike lane. Once it is designated a bike lane there should be no standing cars (unless to make a right turn.) That is best engineering practices IMHO and it would be very helpful if MBPAC would support this legislation.

So I am asking those that agree that parking should be prohibited in bike lanes to write to Michael Jackson mjackson3@mdot.state.md.us the State Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Jim Swift jks36@verizon.net the Chairman of the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (MBPAC) And please be polite! these folks are great supporters of our cause but all engineers are subject to "Oh, but I got an engineering fix for that problem." I have fallen victim to that kind of thinking myself from time to time. So please thank them for their support to date. And while I am at it I would like to give kudos to Carol Silldorff of Bike Maryland and her efforts in engaging this committee.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

MBPAC Discussion on Legislative Issues - Meeting time and place

Scheduled for Monday, January 10 from 1:00 to 2:30 PM in the Bentley Conference Room on the 2nd floor at MDOT.

Maryland Department of Transportation
7201 Corporate Center Drive
Hanover, MD 21076

Meeting is open to all. This is a joint meeting of two MBPAC subcommittees, Legislative and Government Affairs and Commuting and Transportation. The purpose is to go through the legislative issues once again for the purpose of addressing concerns and making tentative recommendations.

[After the fold; is MBPAC complying with the Open Meetings Act?]

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

We are not the only ones with problems with the House Judiciary Committee

Ignition Interlock in Maryland
from Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

In March, I wrote a post about failed efforts in Maryland to require DWI offenders to install an ignition interlock system in their vehicles. Specifically, the bill before the legislature this year would have required people convicted of alcohol related offenses to only drive cars equipped with an ignition interlock system for some period of time. Simple premise: cars can't start if you are not sober. My first thought is who would be opposed to this. It just makes too much sense.

Reading the Maryland State Bar Association Legislative Preview today, I found out something interesting I didn't know: this bill passed the Maryland Senate 44-0 before getting stalled in the house judiciary committee. Okay, so not one person in the Maryland Senate thinks it is a bad idea but we can't even get it to a vote in the House of Delegates?

I think the people of Maryland would be very depressed to see how the sausage is made.

This comment to my last blog post on this should be required reading for the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee:

>>> Our son died as a passenger in an alcohol related car accident in 2002. Since then we have been trying to get a law passed for Ignition Interlock Devices in every car. State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has been working with us and there is a bill in the NYS assembly which we are hoping will become a law some day. My husband and I also hoped that the law would be named Christopher's Law, similar to Megan's Law and our son would have died for something. We always believed that the technology could advance to more than blowing into a device but rather detecting blood alcohol levels through the skin; for example through a steering wheel. This shouldn't be too difficult; the technology is already there with bracelets that detect blood alcohol levels through the skin. More information about this can be found at our blog and our website.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Correction of Senate Bill 51 requested

Recently in the Columbia Patch:
Senate Bill 51 requires drivers to safely pass cyclists by maintaining a minimum distance of three feet, as long as the road is wide enough to safely do so. In return, cyclists must stay to the right side of the road (or the bike lane, if applicable) and maintain a steady course while the vehicle passes. 
http://columbia.patch.com/articles/a-spotlight-on-exercising-safely-in-the-dark

And on a DC area Law blog:

Senate Bill 51:

  • "Requires a driver of a vehicle to safely overtake a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD), or a motor scooter at a distance of at least three feet, unless at the time, the bicycle, EPAMD,or motor scooter rider fails to ride to the right side of the roadway, comply with a requirement to ride in a bike lane or shoulder, or maintain a steady course.
  • The passing rule under the bill also does not apply if the highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least three feet."
http://injurylaw.reganfirm.com/2010/10/articles/automobile-accidents/marylands-new-bicycling-laws/

And in the Examiner:

Maryland enacts pathetic excuse for three feet passing law

Senate Bill 51 requires a driver of a vehicle to safely overtake a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD), or a motor scooter at a distance of at least three feet, unless at the time, the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider fails to ride to the right side of the roadway, comply with a requirement to ride in a bike lane or shoulder, or maintain a steady course. The passing rule under the bill also does not apply if the highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least three feet.

http://www.examiner.com/alternative-transportation-in-tulsa/maryland-enacts-pathetic-excuse-for-three-feet-passing-law
(Read this article how the above summary would be read from a windshield perspective, pretty horrifying for getting additional legal protection via this bill.)
To the authors of the above articles I would like to point out where we have the corrected summaries of laws:
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Safety/Bicycle/default.htm

and I will highlight:
  • Drivers shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle, Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device (EPAMD), or motor scooter being ridden by a person.
  • The driver of a vehicle must not pass any closer than three (3) feet to a bicycle or motor scooter if the bicycle is operated in a lawful manner. It is not lawful to ride against traffic.
As that is the summery of TR § 21-1209 which Senate Bill 51 modified.
As for a discussion what the heck do all those clauses mean in SB 51 see:
http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20101005122814769


To those working on correcting the summaries, per my Google search this is the offending document:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/90-Day-report/Part-G.pdf

Senate Bill 51 (passed) requires a driver of a vehicle to safely overtake a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device (EPAMD), or a motor scooter at a distance of at least three feet, unless at the time, the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider fails to ride to the right side of the roadway, comply with a requirement to ride in a bike lane or shoulder, or maintain a steady course. The passing rule under the bill also does not apply if the highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough

Again let me express my displeasure on not mentioning this is in addition to exercising due care, how poorly a lawful riding cyclists is described, the selection of the secondary clause over the primary clause "less than 3 feet is caused solely by the bicyclist" and poorly summarizing the exception to an extremely rare road type both in occurrence and in conflicts.

I hope that all official documents in relation to our 3' safe passing distance bill will be corrected, thanks.

BaltimoreSpokes.org
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

How far right is "practicable?"

In the words of the late great Ed Kerney, former executive director of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (NCUTLO), "practicable" means "possible, reasonable and safe." The more research we do on how actual behaviors impact "safe," the farther to the left ...this position becomes. (from John Schubert)
image
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Joint and Several Liability: A Law and Economics Defense

from Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Contributory negligence is about as dead of an idea as communism. Maryland is one of five jurisdictions in the United States (along with Virginia, Washington D.C., Alabama, and North Carolina) that have maintained this antiquated notion that being 1% at fault for your own injuries should be a bar to your claim. It is pretty much intellectually indefensible, really.

One big impediment of changing this law in Maryland is a powerful plaintiffs' lawyer. I will not name this lawyer. (One small hint: he owns a baseball team, has more money than everyone reading this blog post combined, and recently donated a truckload of money again to the University of Baltimore School of Law.)

Why would any plaintiffs' lawyer oppose comparative negligence? The reason is simple: when this issue gets brought up in the Maryland legislature, a legislator always says something to the effect of, "This is not a bad idea. But certainly joint and several liability is a bad idea, too. How about we get rid of both contributory negligence and joint and several liability?" Some states have done exactly this. Other states, like Maryland, have allowed defendants to make contribution claims to try to reduce the claim of inequity that one defendant should bear the entire loss for an accident that was caused by more than one party.
...

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Maryland Comparative Negligence on the Way?

from Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog

Certainly, the title is a little hyperbolic. But at the Maryland Court of Appeals Rules Committee meeting this morning, a memorandum was issued from Chief Judge Robert M. Bell requesting a study of how other jurisdictions have dealt with the comparative negligence doctrine.

Just a study, mind you. But this memo jumps right to the heart of the matter.

If the Court were to consider replacing the doctrine of contributory negligence, a common law doctrine in Maryland, with some form of comparative negligence with some sort form of comparative fault:

(a) whether in the Committee's view, the Court could effect that change by Rule, as opposed to judicial decision.

(b) if the Court were to consider the adoption of such a Rule, what form and content of the Rule should be; and

(c) what related legal principles, such as joint and several liability, would need to be considered concurrently.

Well thank you for not beating around the bush, Judge Bell. There is also a specific request for the consideration of views of the Maryland Defense Counsel, the Maryland Association for Justice, and the Maryland State Bar Association.

Timely, I wrote about the interplay between joint and several liability and comparative negligence this week. In terms of what position these groups take, I think it will all depend on joint and several liability. If joint and several liability remains unchanged, Maryland plaintiffs' lawyers would support comparative negligence and Maryland defense attorneys would be obligated to make a big stand in opposition (although that is a lot of show, many self-interested defense lawyers get that more opportunities for plaintiffs' is more opportunities for them). But if it is a swap of comparative for abolishing joint and several liability, this becomes a more, for lack of a better word, nonpartisan issue where fractions are going to split off within the interest groups.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The third time is a charm on cyclists don't have the responsibility to move aside

Washcycles coverage: Buffer rule confusion at the Sun
[B' Spokes: I'll note that it's rather sad what started out of coverage of our 3' buffer rule turned into a misstatement of "The law says the bicyclist has the responsibility to move aside and let you pass. " With no mention of 3' or more space.]
Original story:

According to Young, the bicycle "has all the rights and responsibilities" of any other vehicle. One of those responsibilities, he said, is to avoid impeding traffic.
...
The law says the bicyclist has the responsibility to move aside and let you pass.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/commuting/bs-md-dresser-getting-there-1004-20101004,0,6224574.story

"Correction" #1:

A bicycle on the road is considered a vehicle and has exactly the same rights as any other vehicle on the road. In fact, Maryland Motor Vehicle Law states that "every person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter in a public bicycle area has the rights granted to and is subject to all the duties required of the driver of a vehicle by this title."
...
In the state’s approved driver’s education curriculum, 15 miles an hour below the posted speed limit is used as a benchmark for impeding traffic. This information is only meant as a guideline and is not a legal requirement. Good judgment regarding the safety of all vehicles and individuals must always be exercised.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2010/10/mva_chief_replies_to_bicyclist.html

This not at all what I would consider a correction, so they are a little fuzzy at what's the exact speed difference a cyclist is required to pull over, like that's supposed to help a lot.

"Correction" #2:
Michael Dresser tries to pull it all together and has a lot of nice advice and has this to say on impeding traffic:

As I approached a curve, I came up behind a bicyclist who was clearly struggling with an uphill slope. Despite all exertions, he was unable to sustain more than about 10 mph in a 30-mph zone. Though he was as far to the right as one could reasonably ask, there was no room to pass and no shoulder for him to pull onto.

The result: I had to slow to bike speed for maybe 30 seconds until there was enough room to safely pass. Somehow I survived the ordeal. Most motorists would, too, though you wouldn't know it from the lamentations of some drivers.

In this case, the bicyclist did the right thing staying in his lane — even if it meant temporarily slowing traffic. That's far different from impeding it.

But there are cases where the bicyclist can and should pull over and let cars pass, using a shoulder, a driveway or a patch of gravel. Are they legally compelled to? Probably not. But as bike advocate Jeffrey H. Marks wrote: "If the road doesn't straighten out or widen within a reasonable time, then the bicyclist should try to find a safe area where he can pull off the road to let faster traffic pass."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-11/features/bs-md-dresser-getting-there-1011-20101011_1_bicyclist-bike-speed-bike-advocate

This is certainly better then the original statement by Young:

The law says the bicyclist has the responsibility to move aside and let you pass.

And really is it so unreasonable of me to hyperventilate over the original statement by Young? Obviously having someone of authority to say what the laws says assert that by law you have to move aside and might take a spill in a ditch is nothing to get excited about. The fact that Dresser intercedes in this matter is quite telling. Besides what do I know? I'm only actively involved with bicycling legislation and do not have MVA's expertise of being involved with solely motor vehicle laws. [/sarcasm]

Michael Dresser then concludes:

As the MVA's Kuo put it in his letter, "all vehicles operating on our roadways should exercise an abundance of caution and courtesy at all times to help prevent accidents."

Is anyone — on two wheels, four or 12 — offended by that?
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-11/features/bs-md-dresser-getting-there-1011-20101011_1_bicyclist-bike-speed-bike-advocate

Read more for my defense of hyperventilated accusations

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

MDOT's summary of new laws

UPDATE: .You know, I really should learn not trust Buel Young, HB 1156 was vetoed by the Governor. Seriously Gov, what gives? Negligent driving resulting in death= $287.50 and suspension of license is out of the question?

About HB 1156: <a href="http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/HB1156.htm">http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/HB1156.htm</a>;
Negligent driving: <a href="http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20100717104900514">http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20100717104900514</a>;
Email the Governor: governor@gov.state.md.us (Not that it will do much good now but you never know.)

Originate post:
*************************************************
One I missed that should be good for us:

HB 1156 - Victims' Rights - Fatal Vehicular Accident - Suspension of License

This law allows the MVA to suspend, for up to six months, the license of a driver convicted of a moving violation that contributed to a traffic fatality. It authorizes the victim's representative to be notified of a license suspension hearing held as a result of the moving violation, and the right to give an oral or written statement at the hearing.


And something bad for scooters and mopeds:

SB 344 - Motor Vehicles - Limited Speed Vehicles - Requirements and Prohibitions

This law limits vehicles with the maximum speed capability of between 25 and 55 mph to be driven on highways where the speed limit is at least five miles per hour less than the vehicle's maximum speed. An auto dealer must inform the buyer of the limitations and the vehicle must be sold with an emblem designating it as a &quot;limited speed vehicle.&quot;

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)