Safety is the overarching concern stated by current and potential cyclists. This year we have seen many fatalities, bicyclists and pedestrians struck dead by motors, and many times the driver receiving nothing more than a $220 fine.
In 2007 the BTA will move a legislative agenda that focuses on increasing safety and increasing accountability. We will move three bills to do this, and partner with legislators on forwarding their ideas to increase access, funding, and fairness.
Below our three bills are summarized; keep a watch for bill and other details as the legislative session begins.
#1) Vulnerable Roadway Users Legislation
In order to protect the rights of cyclists and other non-automotive users, the BTA is seeking to create a new crime – injuring or killing “vulnerable roadway users.� Convicted drivers would receive up to a year in jail, fines, and license suspensions. In advance, violators would be able to choose a diversion program that includes required license suspensions, community service, traffic safety education, and restitution. BTA views this concept as the beginning of a major effort to educate the general public, elected officials, judges and law enforcement on protecting cyclists and bicycling as a mainstream activity of Oregonians.
#2) Revisions to Existing Law to Improve Cycling Safety and Viability as Transportation
This concept would be to create a minimum safe passing distance of 3’, referred to as the “three foot� rule and adopted by other states and Grants Pass, Oregon. Motorists would also be allowed to cross the double yellow to pass a cyclist. A final provision would clarify bicycling on the sidewalk.
#3) Pedestrian Hand Signal
This concept would increase walkers’ rights by creating an optional hand signal to help a person clarify their intention to cross the street. Walkers already have the right of way in the crosswalk, but this concept would allow walkers to extended their palm out to trigger the right of way.
For more information or to get involved, please contact Scott Bricker.
These are great ideas. Was any consideration given to Oregon adopting the Idaho law that (I’ve read, I don’t know this for a fact) allows bikers to treat stop signs as yield signs? If so, why was it not added to the agenda? I seem to recall Rep. Prozanski submitting that in a previous session but am not sure.
Motorists would also be allowed to cross the double yellow to pass a cyclist.
What, really? Is that a good idea? Sure, in some places (say, an empty Sandy Blvd.) it’s no big deal… but other places (Highway 6, towards the coast) those double yellows are there for a reason! Of course, cycling in the lane on Highway 6 is a death wish for sure, but my point is that do you really think it’s safe for cars to have any legal reason to cross those double yellows?
In this case, I’m concerned about automobile safety, not bicycle.
Brett -
The BTA consdiered the rolling stop sign law, we are interested in it too but decided not to forward it.
There are pros and cons to the concept, truthfully I believe it’s an engineering issue — there are some stops signs that really mean “everyone stop”, there are some that mean “cars slow down” — not neccessarily the law. On the filp side, the definiton of stop as related to stop signs does not fit well for bicyclists the majority of the time.
no one in particular -
The BTA is pushing a clarification in the law that would allow motorists to cross double yellow lines to pass cyclists, they already can do so to pass obstructions.
There are a variety of reasons we support this. We believe that cyclists want motorists to pass them. We also believe that cyclists want motorists to give plenty of room when doing so. In most cases crossing a double yellow line is required to do so.
From an engineering standpoint, the double yellow line is specifically geared to automobiles and is striped only consider automobiles. A passing zone is engineered to ensure enough sight distance for one motorist to pass another… or one truck to pass another. Passing a cyclists takes less time and distance.
The yellow line also is found in urban areas, but it is disappearing. Studies have shown that auto drivers operate slower on a street after the yellow line is removed (think Ladd’s Addittion). In fact, one might argue that driving in the middle of low-traffic streets is the most appropriate place, allowing cyclists to have plenty of room.
Finally, this bill concept requires motoristis to yield the right-of-way to any oncoming traffic. To support your case however, one idea would prevent crossing the line on curves of ____ mph or lower.
Thanks for the response, Scott. Good points, all of them, of course!
And yeah, you’re absolutely right that I want cars to pass me and I agree that it’s a good thing to support as long as it’s safe.
Thanks again.
I think # 3 is a great idea – if pedestrians use it and if drivers and bikers honor the hand signal.
Re: #1 Up to one year for killing a ped or cyclist? Could they get a longer sentence, be charged with manslaugher, etc. if this passed? Obviously too many get away with killing pedestrians and seriously injuring cyclists with the “I didn’t see him.” excuse. That doesn’t work if you hit a car with your car. Try saying, “I didn’t see him.” and see how far that gets you with the police or the insurance companies. Par for the course of a society that values property over people.
#2 I guess the Tri-Met bus drivers will have to hire a lobbyist.
Helen -
Per #1, if this passed, motorists still could receive other charges, vehicular manslaughter, DUI, etc. The problem is DA’s often don’t chage these harsher crimes. This would be a more middle ground charge between recieving a citation and manslaughter.
Per #2, Tri Met does have a lobbyist…..
I am a little confused by #3. Does this mean that a pedestrian can stop traffic to cross a street in a place other than an intersection or marked crosswalk? I ask because it is my understanding that at intersections and marked crosswalks motorists are already required to stop for pedestrians, thus making the hand signal superfluous or, worse, making motorists think that they only have to stop when the pedestrian thinks to make the hand signal.
Cecil -
You raise good questions and points per #3.
Currently walkers are required to step into the crosswalk, on the roadway, the exercise their right-of-way. This would allow them to trigger it by standing on the curb, while remaining safe, through a hand signal. It would only be where pedestrians currently are supposed to cross.
Also, we will add language to ensure that it is optional. Truthfully, drivers may or may not know the current laws on pedestrians, but if there is someone in street without their hand raised, it’s hard to imagine a driver see this as a run-over-the-pedestrian opportunity. The idea is to create a legal framework for people to flag cars to a stop so they can cross.
going along with #1 (vulnerable roadway users), i hope you would consider including reducing citation fees for cyclists. clearly we don’t inflict the damage/death that drivers do and we’re more vulnerable. there’s a clear legal distinction made between drivers and peds, and this is reflected in the difference in citation fees (and probably also in citation frequency). cyclists clearly fall somewhere between peds and drivers-with the damage we do and is done to us being far closer to peds than drivers-and our citation frequency and fees should reflect this.
Emily -
We are interested in this but not putting it forward in 2007, I would not want to couple the two issues.