Hi Kasey,
How difficult would it be to get WV Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey to issue a WV law interpretation that requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists? Iowa's Attorney General did it.
I will not be able to attend the Oct. 24 WVCC meeting which will discuss the 2014 legislative agenda so I'm writing this message to ask the WVCC to consider adopting Iowa's approach rather than trying to pass 4-foot or 3-foot passing legislation.
Just like WV, Iowa law says that bicyclists have the same rights as the driver of a vehicle; that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and that bicycles are not vehicles. The Iowa Attorney General said that since bicyclists have the same rights as motorists and that motorists must change lanes to pass other vehicles, they must also change lanes to pass bicycles. For more details see http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/safepassing/ . I've attached a comparison of the relevant WV and IA laws.
The fact that the Iowa driver manual instructs motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists helps inculcate the Attorney General's interpretation. We should also consider working with WVDOT to improve the WV Driver Manual to better guide motorists on how to drive around bicyclists. Perhaps WVDOT would work with us to persuade the Attorney General?
After I drafted last year's legislative agenda that included a 4-foot passing law, I obtained "The 3 ft. Law: Lessons Learned from a National Analysis of State Policies and Expert Interviews" by Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy published May 2012. (Attached)
The report indicates that: • The greatest benefit of the 3-foot law is educational by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists but the educational benefit may be short-lived. • The 3-foot law is hardly enforced if enforced at all in 20 states that have adopted it and it might be practically unenforceable. • 3-feet is insufficient when motor vehicles are traveling more than 35 mph.
After reading the report, I offer the following to support requiring motorists to change lanes to pass bicycles: • Iowa did it. • Since most travel lanes in WV are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane, motorists must encroach into the adjacent lane to pass bicyclists while allowing more than 3 or 4-feet. If they're going to encroach into the adjacent lane, why not just move into it? • Motorists must change lanes when passing slower moving motor vehicles so changing lanes when passing bicyclists shouldn't be any more difficult or inconvenient. • While motorists and police officers may not be able to accurately judge 3 or 4-feet, they can certainly accurately judge which lane they're in or whether they're straddling two lanes.
One caveat: on narrow two lane roads with lanes separated by a double yellow center line, I believe crossing the double yellow center line is prohibited (although everybody does it). Whether we advocate for a 3 or 4-foot passing rule or for motorists to change lanes to pass, motorists would have to be allowed to cross the double yellow line. I don't know how WV code addresses crossing the double yellow line. The Rutgers report says that Arkansas and Maine have modified their law to allow motorists to pass bicycles in no passing zones when it is safe to do so. I understand that PA who passed their 4-foot rule after the Rutgers report was published has done similarly.
Finally, I would ask the WVCC to concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable. For justification, I've attached again the talking points that I sent you on April 2, 2013.
Frank D. Gmeindl LCI #1703 491 Wilson Avenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
Thank you Frank! Also, let's consider whether eliminating the prohibition on red light and/or speed cameras is something the WVCC wants to take on as a legislative priority. Yes, the use of red light and speed cameras is currently prohibited in WV. The Governor's Hwy Safety Assoc has a nice summary of how they're used, the benefits, and options (less strict penalties as "traditional" speeding tickets, only use them in school zones) at http://www.ghsa.org/html/issues/auto_enforce.html DC is using them extensively, and even adding stop sign & crosswalk cameras! http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/d-c-residents-agree-red-light-came... for my fellow data heads: "Washington is among the estimated 530 U.S. communities using red light cameras and is one of about 125 jurisdictions with speed cameras. Study after study shows that the devices improve safety. Speed cameras are associated with large reductions in violations and injury crashes. Studies by IIHS have found reductions in red light violation rates of about 40 percent after the introduction of cameras. IIHS in January added to the evidence with research showing that Arlington, Va., intersections equipped with red light cameras experienced a drop in red light running rates." I bet we could do some pilot testing of speed and/or red light cameras in a few home rule communities (or even just in "school zones") and use the revenue for ped/bike infrastructure or funding for Safe Routes to Schools initiatives. The wheels are spinning! Christiaan WV Code is http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=17c&art=6%C2%... WVC 17 C- 6 - 7 A §17C-6-7a. Prohibition of the use of traffic law photo-monitoring devices to detect or prove traffic law violations. (a) As used in this section "traffic law photo-monitoring device" means an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a means of sensing the presence of a motor vehicle that automatically produces photographs, videotape, or digital images of the vehicle, its operator, or its license plate. (b) No police officer may utilize a traffic law photo-monitoring device to determine compliance with, or to detect a violation of, a municipal or county ordinance or any provision of this code that governs or regulates the operation of motor vehicles. (c) A violation of a municipal or county ordinance or any provision of this code that governs or regulates the operation of motor vehicles may not be proved by evidence obtained by the use of a traffic law photo-monitoring device. (d) The provisions of this section do not prohibit the use of any device designed to measure and indicate the speed of a moving object by means of microwaves or reflected light to obtain evidence to prove the speed of a motor vehicle pursuant to section seven of this article. (e) The provisions of this section do not prohibit use of a traffic law photo-monitoring device for any other lawful purposes other than to obtain evidence to prove violations of municipal or county ordinances or any provision of this code governing or regulating the operation of motor vehicles
On Monday, October 14, 2013 10:32 PM, Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kasey,
How difficult would it be to get WV Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey to issue a WV law interpretation that requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists? Iowa's Attorney General did it.
I will not be able to attend the Oct. 24 WVCC meeting which will discuss the 2014 legislative agenda so I'm writing this message to ask the WVCC to consider adopting Iowa's approach rather than trying to pass 4-foot or 3-foot passing legislation.
Just like WV, Iowa law says that bicyclists have the same rights as the driver of a vehicle; that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and that bicycles are not vehicles. The Iowa Attorney General said that since bicyclists have the same rights as motorists and that motorists must change lanes to pass other vehicles, they must also change lanes to pass bicycles. For more details see http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/safepassing/ . I've attached a comparison of the relevant WV and IA laws.
The fact that the Iowa driver manual instructs motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists helps inculcate the Attorney General's interpretation. We should also consider working with WVDOT to improve the WV Driver Manual to better guide motorists on how to drive around bicyclists. Perhaps WVDOT would work with us to persuade the Attorney General?
After I drafted last year's legislative agenda that included a 4-foot passing law, I obtained "The 3 ft. Law: Lessons Learned from a National Analysis of State Policies and Expert Interviews" by Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy published May 2012. (Attached)
The report indicates that:
• The greatest benefit of the 3-foot law is educational by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists but the educational benefit may be short-lived.
• The 3-foot law is hardly enforced if enforced at all in 20 states that have adopted it and it might be practically unenforceable.
• 3-feet is insufficient when motor vehicles are traveling more than 35 mph.
After reading the report, I offer the following to support requiring motorists to change lanes to pass bicycles: • Iowa did it. • Since most travel lanes in WV are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane, motorists must encroach into the adjacent lane to pass bicyclists while allowing more than 3 or 4-feet. If they're going to encroach into the adjacent lane, why not just move into it?
• Motorists must change lanes when passing slower moving motor vehicles so changing lanes when passing bicyclists shouldn't be any more difficult or inconvenient.
• While motorists and police officers may not be able to accurately judge 3 or 4-feet, they can certainly accurately judge which lane they're in or whether they're straddling two lanes.
One caveat: on narrow two lane roads with lanes separated by a double yellow center line, I believe crossing the double yellow center line is prohibited (although everybody does it). Whether we advocate for a 3 or 4-foot passing rule or for motorists to change lanes to pass, motorists would have to be allowed to cross the double yellow line. I don't know how WV code addresses crossing the double yellow line. The Rutgers report says that Arkansas and Maine have modified their law to allow motorists to pass bicycles in no passing zones when it is safe to do so. I understand that PA who passed their 4-foot rule after the Rutgers report was published has done similarly.
Finally, I would ask the WVCC to concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable. For justification, I've attached again the talking points that I sent you on April 2, 2013.
Frank D. Gmeindl LCI #1703 491 Wilson Avenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles
_______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@bikemorgantown.com http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
Personally I won't be holding my breath on Morrisey doing anything like this. However, the idea to have drivers change lanes makes perfect sense, particularly here in WV. Education and enforcement will be a challenge. As usual Frank, you raise great ideas. John On Oct 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Frank Gmeindl fgmeindl@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Kasey,
How difficult would it be to get WV Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey to issue a WV law interpretation that requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists? Iowa's Attorney General did it.
I will not be able to attend the Oct. 24 WVCC meeting which will discuss the 2014 legislative agenda so I'm writing this message to ask the WVCC to consider adopting Iowa's approach rather than trying to pass 4-foot or 3-foot passing legislation.
Just like WV, Iowa law says that bicyclists have the same rights as the driver of a vehicle; that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and that bicycles are not vehicles. The Iowa Attorney General said that since bicyclists have the same rights as motorists and that motorists must change lanes to pass other vehicles, they must also change lanes to pass bicycles. For more details see http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/safepassing/ . I've attached a comparison of the relevant WV and IA laws.
The fact that the Iowa driver manual instructs motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists helps inculcate the Attorney General's interpretation. We should also consider working with WVDOT to improve the WV Driver Manual to better guide motorists on how to drive around bicyclists. Perhaps WVDOT would work with us to persuade the Attorney General?
After I drafted last year's legislative agenda that included a 4-foot passing law, I obtained "The 3 ft. Law: Lessons Learned from a National Analysis of State Policies and Expert Interviews" by Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy published May 2012. (Attached)
The report indicates that: • The greatest benefit of the 3-foot law is educational by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists but the educational benefit may be short-lived. • The 3-foot law is hardly enforced if enforced at all in 20 states that have adopted it and it might be practically unenforceable. • 3-feet is insufficient when motor vehicles are traveling more than 35 mph.
After reading the report, I offer the following to support requiring motorists to change lanes to pass bicycles: • Iowa did it. • Since most travel lanes in WV are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane, motorists must encroach into the adjacent lane to pass bicyclists while allowing more than 3 or 4-feet. If they're going to encroach into the adjacent lane, why not just move into it? • Motorists must change lanes when passing slower moving motor vehicles so changing lanes when passing bicyclists shouldn't be any more difficult or inconvenient. • While motorists and police officers may not be able to accurately judge 3 or 4-feet, they can certainly accurately judge which lane they're in or whether they're straddling two lanes.
One caveat: on narrow two lane roads with lanes separated by a double yellow center line, I believe crossing the double yellow center line is prohibited (although everybody does it). Whether we advocate for a 3 or 4-foot passing rule or for motorists to change lanes to pass, motorists would have to be allowed to cross the double yellow line. I don't know how WV code addresses crossing the double yellow line. The Rutgers report says that Arkansas and Maine have modified their law to allow motorists to pass bicycles in no passing zones when it is safe to do so. I understand that PA who passed their 4-foot rule after the Rutgers report was published has done similarly.
Finally, I would ask the WVCC to concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable. For justification, I've attached again the talking points that I sent you on April 2, 2013.
Frank D. Gmeindl LCI #1703 491 Wilson Avenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles <ComparisonOfWVandIowaLaws.docx> <3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdf> <TalkingPointsFTR.docx> <FTRGraphic.png>
Good stuff here, it would be wonderful if our attorney general would issue the same. One point of clarification though, is it really the case that Iowa law states that "and that bicycles are not vehicles". If bicycles aren't vehicles, then on appeal a lawyer might get an otherwise guilty driver off since he wasn't overtaking a vehicle!
-------------------------------------------
Stephen G. Graber
Biochem & Mol Pharmacology
PO Box 9142, HSN-3122
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-9142
phone: 304-293-2305
------ _0
------ _ <,_
---- (*)/ (*)
________________________________ From: bikeboard-bounces@bikemorgantown.com [bikeboard-bounces@bikemorgantown.com] On Behalf Of John Francis [johncfrancis13@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:13 AM To: Frank Gmeindl Cc: Strawn, Dennis A; Andrea Salina; Kasey Russell; Greg Garrett; Gary Zuckett; Gail Pitchford; Craig Slaughter; Patrick Donovan; Abildso, Christiaan; bikeboard@bikemorgantown.com Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] 2014 legislative agenda
Personally I won't be holding my breath on Morrisey doing anything like this. However, the idea to have drivers change lanes makes perfect sense, particularly here in WV. Education and enforcement will be a challenge. As usual Frank, you raise great ideas. John On Oct 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@gmail.commailto:fgmeindl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kasey,
How difficult would it be to get WV Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey to issue a WV law interpretation that requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists? Iowa's Attorney General did it.
I will not be able to attend the Oct. 24 WVCC meeting which will discuss the 2014 legislative agenda so I'm writing this message to ask the WVCC to consider adopting Iowa's approach rather than trying to pass 4-foot or 3-foot passing legislation.
Just like WV, Iowa law says that bicyclists have the same rights as the driver of a vehicle; that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and that bicycles are not vehicles. The Iowa Attorney General said that since bicyclists have the same rights as motorists and that motorists must change lanes to pass other vehicles, they must also change lanes to pass bicycles. For more details see http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/safepassing/ . I've attached a comparison of the relevant WV and IA laws.
The fact that the Iowa driver manual instructs motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists helps inculcate the Attorney General's interpretation. We should also consider working with WVDOT to improve the WV Driver Manual to better guide motorists on how to drive around bicyclists. Perhaps WVDOT would work with us to persuade the Attorney General?
After I drafted last year's legislative agenda that included a 4-foot passing law, I obtained "The 3 ft. Law: Lessons Learned from a National Analysis of State Policies and Expert Interviews" by Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy published May 2012. (Attached)
The report indicates that: • The greatest benefit of the 3-foot law is educational by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists but the educational benefit may be short-lived. • The 3-foot law is hardly enforced if enforced at all in 20 states that have adopted it and it might be practically unenforceable. • 3-feet is insufficient when motor vehicles are traveling more than 35 mph.
After reading the report, I offer the following to support requiring motorists to change lanes to pass bicycles: • Iowa did it. • Since most travel lanes in WV are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane, motorists must encroach into the adjacent lane to pass bicyclists while allowing more than 3 or 4-feet. If they're going to encroach into the adjacent lane, why not just move into it? • Motorists must change lanes when passing slower moving motor vehicles so changing lanes when passing bicyclists shouldn't be any more difficult or inconvenient. • While motorists and police officers may not be able to accurately judge 3 or 4-feet, they can certainly accurately judge which lane they're in or whether they're straddling two lanes.
One caveat: on narrow two lane roads with lanes separated by a double yellow center line, I believe crossing the double yellow center line is prohibited (although everybody does it). Whether we advocate for a 3 or 4-foot passing rule or for motorists to change lanes to pass, motorists would have to be allowed to cross the double yellow line. I don't know how WV code addresses crossing the double yellow line. The Rutgers report says that Arkansas and Maine have modified their law to allow motorists to pass bicycles in no passing zones when it is safe to do so. I understand that PA who passed their 4-foot rule after the Rutgers report was published has done similarly.
Finally, I would ask the WVCC to concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable. For justification, I've attached again the talking points that I sent you on April 2, 2013.
Frank D. Gmeindl LCI #1703 491 Wilson Avenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles <ComparisonOfWVandIowaLaws.docx> <3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdf> <TalkingPointsFTR.docx> <FTRGraphic.png>
Yes. It would nice for the WV AG to issue such an opinion. I doubt it will happen. Just not something he is overly concerned with. ________________________________ From: Graber, Stephen sggraber@hsc.wvu.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 7:49:37 PM To: John Francis; Frank Gmeindl Cc: Strawn, Dennis A; Andrea Salina; Kasey Russell; Greg Garrett; Gary Zuckett; Gail Pitchford; Craig Slaughter; Patrick Donovan; Abildso, Christiaan; bikeboard@bikemorgantown.com Board Subject: RE: [Bikeboard] 2014 legislative agenda
Good stuff here, it would be wonderful if our attorney general would issue the same. One point of clarification though, is it really the case that Iowa law states that "and that bicycles are not vehicles". If bicycles aren't vehicles, then on appeal a lawyer might get an otherwise guilty driver off since he wasn't overtaking a vehicle!
-------------------------------------------
Stephen G. Graber
Biochem & Mol Pharmacology
PO Box 9142, HSN-3122
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-9142
phone: 304-293-2305
------ _0
------ _ <,_
---- (*)/ (*)
________________________________ From: bikeboard-bounces@bikemorgantown.com [bikeboard-bounces@bikemorgantown.com] On Behalf Of John Francis [johncfrancis13@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 11:13 AM To: Frank Gmeindl Cc: Strawn, Dennis A; Andrea Salina; Kasey Russell; Greg Garrett; Gary Zuckett; Gail Pitchford; Craig Slaughter; Patrick Donovan; Abildso, Christiaan; bikeboard@bikemorgantown.com Board Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] 2014 legislative agenda
Personally I won't be holding my breath on Morrisey doing anything like this. However, the idea to have drivers change lanes makes perfect sense, particularly here in WV. Education and enforcement will be a challenge. As usual Frank, you raise great ideas. John On Oct 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl@gmail.commailto:fgmeindl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kasey,
How difficult would it be to get WV Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey to issue a WV law interpretation that requires motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists? Iowa's Attorney General did it.
I will not be able to attend the Oct. 24 WVCC meeting which will discuss the 2014 legislative agenda so I'm writing this message to ask the WVCC to consider adopting Iowa's approach rather than trying to pass 4-foot or 3-foot passing legislation.
Just like WV, Iowa law says that bicyclists have the same rights as the driver of a vehicle; that a motorist must pass at a safe distance and not return to the right side of the road until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle; and that bicycles are not vehicles. The Iowa Attorney General said that since bicyclists have the same rights as motorists and that motorists must change lanes to pass other vehicles, they must also change lanes to pass bicycles. For more details see http://iowabicyclecoalition.org/safepassing/ . I've attached a comparison of the relevant WV and IA laws.
The fact that the Iowa driver manual instructs motorists to change lanes to pass bicyclists helps inculcate the Attorney General's interpretation. We should also consider working with WVDOT to improve the WV Driver Manual to better guide motorists on how to drive around bicyclists. Perhaps WVDOT would work with us to persuade the Attorney General?
After I drafted last year's legislative agenda that included a 4-foot passing law, I obtained "The 3 ft. Law: Lessons Learned from a National Analysis of State Policies and Expert Interviews" by Rutgers University Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy published May 2012. (Attached)
The report indicates that: • The greatest benefit of the 3-foot law is educational by increasing motorist awareness of bicyclists but the educational benefit may be short-lived. • The 3-foot law is hardly enforced if enforced at all in 20 states that have adopted it and it might be practically unenforceable. • 3-feet is insufficient when motor vehicles are traveling more than 35 mph.
After reading the report, I offer the following to support requiring motorists to change lanes to pass bicycles: • Iowa did it. • Since most travel lanes in WV are not wide enough for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane, motorists must encroach into the adjacent lane to pass bicyclists while allowing more than 3 or 4-feet. If they're going to encroach into the adjacent lane, why not just move into it? • Motorists must change lanes when passing slower moving motor vehicles so changing lanes when passing bicyclists shouldn't be any more difficult or inconvenient. • While motorists and police officers may not be able to accurately judge 3 or 4-feet, they can certainly accurately judge which lane they're in or whether they're straddling two lanes.
One caveat: on narrow two lane roads with lanes separated by a double yellow center line, I believe crossing the double yellow center line is prohibited (although everybody does it). Whether we advocate for a 3 or 4-foot passing rule or for motorists to change lanes to pass, motorists would have to be allowed to cross the double yellow line. I don't know how WV code addresses crossing the double yellow line. The Rutgers report says that Arkansas and Maine have modified their law to allow motorists to pass bicycles in no passing zones when it is safe to do so. I understand that PA who passed their 4-foot rule after the Rutgers report was published has done similarly.
Finally, I would ask the WVCC to concentrate on repealing 17C-11-5 (a) which requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as practicable. For justification, I've attached again the talking points that I sent you on April 2, 2013.
Frank D. Gmeindl LCI #1703 491 Wilson Avenue Morgantown, WV 26501 304-376-0446 Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles <ComparisonOfWVandIowaLaws.docx> <3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdf> <TalkingPointsFTR.docx> <FTRGraphic.png>
-
Christiaan Abildso -
Frank Gmeindl -
Graber, Stephen -
John Francis -
Patrick Donovan