Council balks at bike lane parking fines

Bicycling

by David Alpert • July 16, 2008 9:52 am

At yesterday's legislative session, the DC Council debated the bill to raise fines for drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians. Councilmembers Tommy Wells (ward 6) and Mary Cheh (ward 3) introduced an amendment to also prescribe a $75 fine for drivers who block bicycle lanes.

E Street. Photo by tvol on Flickr.

Currently, it's illegal to block a bike lane, but there is no fine except for the general $50 double-parking fine. But blocking a bike lane is more dangerous, and should have a higher fine; plus, a driver just standing in a bike lane can't be ticketed for double parking (maybe $25 for driving in a bike lane?) even though standers blocking bike lanes create the same dangerous conditions.

Councilmembers Harry Thomas, Jr. (ward 5) and Chairman Vincent Gray weren't ready to go along. Thomas feels we need thorough national research to determine the proper fine (actually, NYC charges $115, San Francisco $100, Chicago $150). Gray objected because drivers could receive two tickets, for double parking and blocking a bike lane, even though drivers can get two tickets for other infractions where they break two laws.

Wells withdrew this amendment and plans to reintroduce it at second reading in September. I'd like to hear more from Thomas and Gray about their objections. I can understand not wanting to add a whole new fine without the same level of hearings and thoughtful consideration that the pedestrian fine received. I've criticized legislative bodies for hasty action in the past. But ultimately, Thomas and Gray should demonstrate that they understand the importance of bike safety by supporting a fine for blocking bike lanes.

Update: The video is now online and I was able to watch the Council's actual deliberations. There are two issues:

First, some bike lanes are not next to parking lanes, and blocking it isn't double parking. Blocking that lane is illegal, but there is no fine at all that police could levy.

Second, Wells argues that the fine for blocking a bike lane should be higher than just simple double parking, because double parking that blocks a bike lane is much more dangerous than just double parking in a place that blocks a lane of traffic.

As my original source stated, Thomas seems to be nitpicking by complaining about the process by which Wells came up with the $75 level. Gray may be making a legitimate point, though perhaps also a nitpicking one as well: Wells set the fine higher than double parking because it's worse than double parking, but if police will ticket a double parker for double parking and for blocking the lane, then it's higher twice. Still, as Wells pointed out, with so many similar cases, getting two tickets for $125 doesn't seem ridiculous.

As I said above, I don't think it's wrong for the Council to make sure they've thought through every issue. Thomas's cantankerousness grates, but the conclusion to reintroduce the fine at second reading seems appropriate to ensure everyone has thought through the specifics.

9 comments — Share	— tags: bike lanes, bike safety, DC, DC Council, Harry Thomas Jr, Mary Cheh, Tommy Wells, Vincent Gray

Car-centric and walkable instincts vie within evolving Thomas (Mar 20, 2009)
New Council structure announced; Wells joins key committee (Dec 24, 2008)
Council passes fine for blocking bike lane (Sep 16, 2008)
DC Council is baaaack! (Sep 16, 2008)
Labor successfully waters down noise bill (Jun 3, 2008)

Comments

I suspect such fines will be largely irrelevant if a) their existence is not disseminated to the public and b) they're not enforced.

by Joel F. on Jul 16, 2008 10:31 am

I've long thought that part of the penalty for illegal parking outside of boundaries (such as parking beyond a "no parking" sign, or outside of the lines in a parking lot, or in this case, in a bike lane) should be that the police or common citizenry would be allowed to paint that part car with non-permanent neon dayglo paint. Sort of a scarlet "you're a crappy parker" letter.

I don't take credit for this idea; I think I heard it as part of a stand-up routine?

by Michael on Jul 16, 2008 10:39 am

I once parked in a forbidden zone (unknowingly) and returned to find a day-glo orange 5"x5" sticker on the driver's side front window informing me of my violation. It was a very effective education tool and detterent(sp?).

by Binachi on Jul 16, 2008 10:55 am

I agree with Joel F on the enforcement issue. Fines could be raised to $100,000 per infraction but it doesn't mean a thing if the rules are not enforced. Does MPD even have a traffic division? I see people running red lights, rolling through stops, and failing to yield to pedestrians without consequence every day. Its the wild west out there.

by Chris L on Jul 16, 2008 1:16 pm

There's no getting around the fact that bike lane or no bike lane there will be times when a driver must stop to drop off or pick up groceries, elderly passengers, or etc. Another good reason pointing to why bike lanes are not only dangerous for bikers but unworkable.

by Lance on Jul 16, 2008 2:09 pm

Parking or delaying traffic in a bike lane should be a ticketable offense, even if it creates a double fine along with double parking. If the drivers double park on a street with no bike lane, then they'll earn only a single ticket. If only enforcement and judgement were backed with the same enthusiasm as legeslation.

I don't follow the logic that a blocked bike lane is more dangerous than a clear bike lane.

Also I love the bike box idea used in some other cities.

by Tim on Jul 16, 2008 2:36 pm

There's no getting around the fact that bike lane or no bike lane there will be times when a driver must stop to drop off or pick up groceries, elderly passengers, or etc.

You elided the end of this sentence, so I'm not sure where you were going with it. The way I see it, there are three possible endings:

1. ...and it's unreasonable to expect them to make the effort to park legally. Lesser people might think that, if someone has to stop their car, they should park in a legal spot. But laws against something only apply to people who don't want the prohibited thing. That's why, for example, junkies can legally shoot heroin, but non-users can't.

2. ...and that's why double-parking, and triple-parking, should be legal. Of course people will need to pick up their elderly groceries, and any rule that reserves any road-accessible space for non-parking purposes, such as for allowing cars to move forward, won't work. Also, we should allow people to park on highways, railroad tracks, airport runways, the stage at Nissan Pavillion, and within the opposition's 20 yard line at Navy football games.

3. ...and that's also why I encourage cowpunk bands to perform sets in the middle of downtown streets during the evening rush hour. Given that there's a lack of good concert spaces downtown, it's unreasonable for drivers not to expect that people will need the space currently used for streets for other purposes.

by cminus on Jul 16, 2008 3:23 pm

Cminus, you rock! I agree completely that having to walk an extra 10 feet from the legal parking space slightly down the street isn't reason enough to allow people to park illegally no matter the mission they hope to accomplish by stopping (and no exceptions for elderly groceries). It's common courtousy to not impede the course of someone else's route on the road (exception here for stopped traffic, certainly)!

Maybe the solution is not a fine, but rather a lesson learned by participation. Take away double parker's cars and replace them with bikes for a week. Maybe if they have to live with negligent drivers blocking their designated space for a while, they will start to understand our ire at being considered second class commuters.

by VBatt on Jul 16, 2008 5:04 pm

By the way, if people have to pull up to the curb to unload groceries (I did that sometimes, too), why not create loading zones on each block so there's somewhere to pull up?

by David Alpert on Jul 16, 2008 5:13 pm