Our advocacy work takes time, and that doesn’t happen without support from folks like you. WABA is 501(c)3 non-profit organization and all donations are tax-deductible. Please support this campaign with a donation of $25 or more today.Our work on contributory negligence won’t stop until we’re rid of this dinosaur of a legal doctrine. Contribute today, so we can celebrate its extinction with you.
Preventing DooringThis law is very good news for anyone who gets doored in Virginia, but every road user has a role to play in preventing dooring crashes. Here are a few tips.
Drivers & Passengers
- Before opening your door, check behind you. Use your mirror and turn your body to look before opening a car door, especially when inside the car.
- Open car doors slowly.
- Adopt this habit; Release the latch of the driver side door with your right hand. This practice forces you to look behind you before opening the door.
- Remind passengers to check it’s clear to open their car door before they exit.
- Avoid riding in the “door zone.” Car doors can extend 4-5 feet from a car and open quickly. Leave 3-5 feet between you and parked cars. On narrow streets, many bike lanes are placed in the “door zone,” so hug the left side of the lane.
- Stay alert: Keep your eyes up, scan for activity ahead of you, and be on the lookout for drivers and passengers inside cars.
- Be predictable and visible: Ride in a straight line and ride where drivers expect bicyclists to be. Use a front light when riding at night.
- Learn and practice crash avoidance maneuvers: Take a City Cycling Class with WABA.
Other LegislationAnother bill, SB 669 was continued in the House Transportation Committee to 2017. SB 669 would have removed a disincentive for cities and towns to replace traffic lanes with bike lanes. Currently, highway maintenance funding is calculated based on the number of lane miles the city or town maintains. Under this bill, municipalities would not have their maintenance funding reduced if motor vehicle lane miles are converted to bicycle-only lanes. This would have helped municipalities wishing to engage in traffic calming, road diets, and other street safety projects. This bill made significant headway, passing in the Senate, but never made it out of the House Transportation Committee. continued to 2017. This means that this bill will be back on the calendar for the 2017 legislative session.
The HearingSupporters of safe streets came out in full force to support the bills. Councilmembers heard testimony from a wide range of bicycle, pedestrian, insurance and automotive advocates on the merits of the proposals. Fifteen public witnesses shared personal and heartfelt stories about their experiences, clearly underscoring how much work remains to be done to prevent the tragedies we have become accustomed to on our roads. With more than thirty wide-ranging policy changes on the table, it is telling that not a single witness raised strong objections in testimony. Every witness, even the automotive and insurance lobbies, supported stiffer penalties for dangerous and impaired driving, a codified complete streets policy, and prioritizing the safety of vulnerable road users. Councilmembers Mary Cheh, Charles Allen, Brandon Todd, and Elisa Silverman each made firm commitments to changing our approach to street safety. Charles Allen (Ward 6) stated that we “must stop thinking of roads as only for cars,” because “safety must be more important than convenience.” These bills are likely to move forward quickly. After the holiday recess, we expect to see the proposals combined into a single bill, followed by a vote to move it out of committee. For a full breakdown on the merits of each proposal, click here to read WABA’s full written testimony, For great coverage of the hearing from WABA member and twitter user @ and others, click here. You can submit comments on these bills until Dec. 22.
What is Stop-as-Yield all about?The proposed change would allow bicyclists in very specific situations to treat stop signs as yield signs. Many drivers report confusion about current law for bicyclists. A change to the stop law would reflect current practice by many drivers and bicyclists. The following chart compares what behavior is illegal or legal under current law and what would change if the proposed legislation were enacted.
|Bicyclist action||Potential for endangering other road users?||Status under current traffic law||Status under proposed law|
|Riding through four-way stop without stopping or looking with a vehicle stopped at the cross street.||Yes||Illegal||Illegal|
|Riding through two-way stop without stopping or looking with a vehicle present or proceeding in the opposite direction.||Yes||Illegal||Illegal|
|Riding through a red traffic light without stopping.||Yes||Illegal||Illegal|
|Riding through a four-way or two-way stop without stopping when another vehicle is approaching at the same time.||Yes||Illegal||Illegal|
|Riding through a stop sign with a pedestrian crossing or preparing to cross the street.||Yes||Illegal||Illegal|
|Riding through a four-way stop without other vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians present.||No||Illegal||Legal|
There’s Still Time to Voice your Support For These BillsThe hearing is over, but the official record for this legislative package will remain open for comments until December 22nd. If you believe, as we do, that streets should be designed to prioritize safety for the most vulnerable, that driving carries enormous responsibility to protect the people and communities on our roads, and that safe travel is more important than fast travel, submit comments to the record.Of all the great provisions in these bills, stop-as-yield is the most vulnerable, and the most likely to be left out of a final version. If you would like to see stop-as-yield implemented in DC, include that in your comments.
- B21-0335, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015;
- B21-0383, the Vision Zero Act of 2015; and
- B21-0021, the Enhanced Penalties for Distracted Driving Amendment Act of 2015
Here’s a rundown of the key issues addressed by the bills.
(Believe it or not, this is the short version…)Complete Streets Policy: One of the most important sections of both the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act and the Vision Zero Act relates to complete streets policies. Each bill lists the principles and purposes of the city’s complete streets policy. The Vision Zero Act would “ensure the safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people with disabilities, the elderly, motorists, freight providers, and emergency responders.” (p. 2, l. 19.) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act includes similar language. (p. 8, l. 183.) In order to actually change the status quo and create streets for people, the complete streets policy should elevate the safety and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people with disabilities, and the elderly over the convenience of motorists and freight providers. The Vision Zero Act would specifically require facilities for all users to be included in any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, repaving, and rehabilitation of a street. (p. 3, l. 16.) This means that DDOT would presumptively install bicycle lanes or separated cycle tracks any time it repaved a street that did not previously have such facilities. WABA strongly supports this provision and recommends its inclusion in any transportation safety legislation that is adopted. Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Areas: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act would require DDOT to designate priority areas where the area is used heavily by bicyclists and pedestrians and the area has a high number of collisions. DDOT would be required to make improvements to traffic patterns and infrastructure in priority areas to enhance bicyclist and pedestrian safety. WABA strongly supports this program and recommends its inclusion in any transportation safety legislation that is adopted. We would like to see the bill revised to provide that DDOT shall actually implement, and not just recommend, safety changes to the priority areas. Open Access to Data and Information: WABA strongly supports open access to crash and road safety data. Accurate, complete, and accessible data will help the District accomplish many of the goals of its Vision Zero Initiative by:
- Identifying high priority streets, intersections and neighborhoods for safety improvements;
- Analyzing the effects of street design features;
- Creating more accurate benchmarks for measuring the District’s Vision Zero performance over time;
- Enabling public health practitioners to develop a greater understanding of the relationship between crash variables and medical outcomes; and
- Promoting transparency and ensuring the public’s ready access to important safety information.
- Updating the crash intake form of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) to better align with national minimum standards so that the circumstances of a crash are captured accurately at the scene of the crash;
- Integrating crash data with medical data so that the physical outcomes of people injured in a crash are reflected in the record of the crash; and
- Disclosing crash data automatically, in a timely and intuitive manner.
- Ignition Interlock Devices—The Vision Zero Act would require a person who has been convicted of certain drunk driving offenses to install an ignition interlock device. (p. 6, l. 15.) WABA supports this requirement, and believes it should be strengthened with an enforcement provision. Currently, the only consequence of failing to install a required ignition interlock device appears to be an extension of the mandatory term for which the device is required to be installed.
- Drunk Driving Penalties—The Vision Zero Act would increase penalties for drunk driving offenses. (p. 7, l. 21.) WABA supports these provisions.
- For-Hire Vehicle Operator Training—The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act would revise for-hire vehicle operating training and taxi operator training to add training in specific traffic concepts, including the rights and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. (p. 12, l. 276.) WABA fully supports these revisions, which will help educate our city’s most active and frequent drivers on the rights of the most vulnerable road users.
- Repeat Offenders—The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act would provide an escalating series of fines for repeat offenders of serious driving violations, including entering crosswalks, crossing through a red light, failing to yield the right of way, or parking or idling on a sidewalk or bike lane. (p. 14, l. 322.) WABA supports this provision, but believes it could be strengthened by clarifying that separate violations of two different offenses on the list would also trigger increased penalties.
- Distracted Driving—The three bills being considered would address some of the flaws of the Distracted Driving Safety Act of 2004.First, the Vision Zero Act would amend the law to increase the penalty for distracted driving from a $100 fine with no points to a $500 fine plus two traffic points. (p. 9, l. 1.) The fine and points would be suspended upon the purchase of a hands-free accessory.Second, the Enhanced Penalties for Distracted Driving Amendment Act would amend the law by keeping the $100 base fine, but providing an escalating series of fines for repeated violations within an 18 month period, including a suspension of the driver’s license for the third violation. (p. 2, l. 41.) Points would not be assessed for a single violation that did not contribute to a crash, but may be assessed for a subsequent violation that occurs within an 18 month period, regardless of whether the violations contributed to a crash. (p. 2, l. 55.) There would be no suspension of a fine or points for the purchase of a hands-free accessory.Third, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act would amend the law to further limit the situations in which a person could use a mobile telephone while operating a vehicle. (p. 15, l. 347.)WABA supports adopting a combination of all three bills. The base penalty for distracted driving should be increased to include higher fines and traffic points, because a $100 fine is far too low to be a deterrent. Moreover, drivers should not be free of punishment for purchasing a hands-free device, since research now shows that hands-free phone use is nearly as distracting as handheld phone use. Rather, an increase in the penalties applicable to repeat offenses should provide first-time violators with the incentive to comply with the law in the future. Finally, the scope of proscribed conduct should be expanded to include all situations where a driver is operating a motor vehicle other than an emergency.
- Aggressive Driving—WABA supports the creation of an aggressive driving offense for drivers who commit three or more specified dangerous offenses at the same time or during a continuous period of driving one mile. (Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act, p. 15, l. 352.) Given the seriousness and number of offenses underlying an aggressive driving violation, we believe the proposed penalty of two traffic points and a $200 fine is too low and should be increased.
- Speeding Legislation—Unfortunately, none of the bills being considered would lower the speed limit on the city’s residential streets from 25 mph to 20 mph, despite widespread recognition that speeding is one of the most important determinants of traffic injuries and deaths. Cities larger and more congested than the District of Columbia have adopted lower speed limits. The evidence is clear that lower speed limits save lives:
- A study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that the risk of severe injury for a pedestrian hit at 23 mph is 25 percent. At 31 mph, the risk of severe injury increases to 50 percent. At 39 mph, the rate of severe injury jumps to 75 percent.
- According to AAA research, a person is 74 times more likely to be killed if struck by a vehicle traveling at 30 mph than at 25 mph.WABA urges the City Council to pass legislation lowering the speed limit on residential streets to 20 mph.
- No Right Turn on Red—Pedestrians are especially vulnerable to crashes by drivers making quick and dangerous right turns at red lights. Drivers are violating the pedestrians’ right of way if they turn through an intersection with a pedestrian present. Often, drivers do not come to a full stop behind the stop bar or slow down before making a right turn on red. There should be an increased application of or a city-wide adoption of No Right Turn on Red.
- Increased Fines for Parking in Bike Lanes—Parking, standing, or stopping in bike lanes causes a dangerous situation for bicyclists and drivers. When a bike lane is blocked, even temporarily, bicyclists are forced to merge into a regular traffic lane. This sudden need to merge out of a bike lane and into mixed traffic often creates a safety hazard for drivers and bicyclists.
It is illegal under District law to stop, stand, or park in a bike lane. The penalty is $65 per violation. In 2013, the District issued 4,200 tickets for unlawful parking and standing in bike lanes. The number of vehicles that continue to park in bike lanes demonstrates that this fine is clearly not a sufficient deterrent, especially for commercial delivery drivers.
The district should raise the penalty for illegal parking in bike lanes. Comparable cities have significantly higher fines than the District ($100 in San Francisco and New York; $115 in Chicago).Are you in? Email firstname.lastname@example.org or call (202) 724-8062 to get a place on the speaker’s list. Then, email email@example.com to let us know you are coming. We’ll have talking points, resources, and staff available to help you write and deliver your testimony. You can also stop by the WABA office on Monday, Dec 7, between 4 pm and 7 pm to discuss in person.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act of 2015 (B21-0335)This bill reflects the consensus recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Working Group, (convened by Councilmember Cheh and co-chaired by WABA and AAA Mid-Atlantic) which was formed to assist the Council in reforming the District’s laws, regulations, and policies to improve road safety. It includes improvements to crash data reporting, adopts a Complete Streets policy, creates pedestrian and bicycle priority zones, adopts “stop as yield” (a modified version of the Idaho stop law) for bicycles, clarifies that existing laws prohibiting opening doors into traffic apply to bicycles, and a host of other safety improvements.
Vision Zero Act of 2015 (B21-0383)Mayor Bowser’s bill codifies aspects of the District’s Vision Zero plan. The bill makes the Complete Streets policy law; bans the use of ATVs and dirt bikes on D.C. streets; establishes an ignition interlock device program for repeat DUI offenders; changes fines and jail sentences of drunk drivers; increases fines for distracted driving from $100 to $500 and adds two points.
Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act of 2015 (B21-0004)If passed, this bill will bring D.C. negligence laws out of the dark ages and more in line with the majority of states. Under current D.C. law, a bicyclist injured in a crash cannot collect damages if she is found to have been in any way at fault, even if the other party bears a disproportionate amount of blame. As a result, insurance companies routinely deny claims resulting from crashes, leaving injured bicyclists with few options. Under the proposed bill, contributory negligence could not be used to deny coverage to a bicyclist or pedestrian who was 50% or less responsible for her injuries. It also explicitly retains the doctrine of joint and several liability— a primary concern for the D.C. Trial Lawyers Association that contributed to an earlier version of the bill being tabled in 2014.
Enhanced Penalties for Distracted Driving Amendment Act of 2015 (B21-0021)This bill, introduced by D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, strengthens the penalties for distracted driving. Under the proposed law, the first violation would result in a $100 fine, with fines escalating for repeat violations over an 18 month period. The second violation in an 18 month period would be a $200. Any further violations would incur a $400 fine and suspension of license and vehicle registration for 60 to 180 days. Points could be assessed for a second violation within 18 months even if the violation did not result in an accident.