The 2012 legislative session did not substantially advance the interests of cycling in Maryland. Last year saw the passage of House Bill 363, which created a new crime of vehicular negligent homicide, after years of lobbying by cyclists, AAA, victims families, and the elected states attorneys. And 2010 was a banner year, with both the creation of the 3-foot passing law and repeal of the long-hated mandatory shoulder use rule.

This year, the General Assembly rejected Governor O’Malley’s proposal to end the sales tax exemption for gasoline, which means that many transportation projects are likely to proceed more slowly than planned—including those that help cycling. The Purple Line will be threatened unless the Legislature provides funding next year. The Legislature also declined to give police the power to stop a driver for talking on a cell phone. But the news was not all bad:

• A Senate bill to repeal the negligent homicide statute was soundly rejected (S.B. 942);
• The House Environmental Matters Committee gave an unfavorable report to a bill that would have allowed automobiles to cross the double yellow line to pass bikes (H.B. 1397); and
• The House failed to act on a proposal to legalize cycling on all sidewalks statewide except for those in Gaithersburg and Baltimore (H.B. 946).

While each of these bills were poorly conceived, the sponsors had good intentions and it may be possible to accomplish their objectives without the problems their bills would have caused. Over the next few days, I’ll comment on the fate of those three bills and possible next steps.

(Jim Titus is affiliated with several Maryland cycling groups. The opinions expressed herein are Jim's alone, and do not reflect the views of any organization with which he is affiliated.)

[B' Spokes: I will also note my ongoing efforts to correct the State's summaries of this law, some have been successful and some have not, such as this is still a good link: http://www.marylandroads.com/MHSO/BikeSafety_LawCard.pdf


To highlight bits of Jim's article for emphases:]

• If the highway is too narrow for the driver to legally pass with the required clearance. This probably only applies to narrow highways, such as one-lane bridges and narrow roads where cars must slow and pull partly off the road to pass in opposite directions. But Bike Maryland believes that it also applies to no-passing zones (double yellow lines) on standard 2-lane roadways , because it thinks that the legislature inserted the word “highway” when it meant “lane”.  This assumption prompted Bike Maryland to sponsor HB 1397 which would have allowed cars to cross the double yellow line to pass bikes.  That way, our Baltimore allies reasoned, the exception to the 3-foot rule will no longer apply because it will be legal to pass with the required clearance.  Previous posts on this blog have discussed why many cyclists did not support that bill. MDOT also opposed the bill, albeit for different reasons. After the session, some of the advocates had an email colloquy with MDOT on whether the three-foot bill does or does not apply to the typical 2-lane road.    I asked MDOT for its position on that question, but so far, MDOT has not responded,

These four exceptions have been widely publicized, though few drivers probably undestand what they mean and no one knows what the final one means.

Between the ambiguous exceptions, and the exceptions to(the (bike lane and keep right) exceptions, Maryland has a law that is too confusing to explain to student drivers.  Fortunately, the Motor Vehicle Administration appears to be sticking to the simplest approach:  Drivers should pass cyclists with at least three feet.  This was always MVA's recommended best practice, and the fact that a court can not convict a driver for passing with less clearance in some situations does not change the clearance with which a reasonable driver will pass.

(Jim Titus is on the board of directors of WABA from Prince Georges County, The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of WABA.)

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2012/04/in-maryland-3-foot-law-still-requires-cyclists-to-be-vigilant.html

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

“I didn’t see the cyclist.”

It’s the most common explanation motorists offer after hitting a rider.

Even though the cyclist was wearing high-visibility clothing.

Or was well-lit.

Or was riding in broad daylight.

It’s the “ignorance is bliss” defense: “I didn’t see the cyclist, and I didn’t intend to hit anybody. It was just an accident. It’s nobody’s fault.”

Well, yes, it is somebody’s fault. It’s your fault, it doesn’t matter that you didn’t “intend” to hit somebody. You did hit somebody, and if you didn’t see the cyclist because you weren’t paying attention, it’s your fault.

Let’s be clear about this point, because it’s the other Get Out of Jail Free card that negligent drivers always seem to reach for. Intent is not relevant in determining whether a driver was at fault in an accident. In fact, that’s why we call unintentional collisions “accidents.” If the driver intended to hit somebody, that’s assault. If the driver didn’t intend to hit somebody, that’s an “accident.” But just because the collision was unintentional doesn’t mean that nobody was to blame. Almost all collisions are preventable. If the collision occurred because a motorist didn’t see a cyclist who was plainly visible, guess what? It’s the motorist’s fault.