Council passes fine for blocking bike lane

Traffic

by David Alpert • September 16, 2008 1:12 pm

The Council just passed on second reading the bill to raise the fine for drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians from $50 to $250 and add points on the driver's license.

Photo by tvol on Flickr.

Tommy Wells reintroduced his amendment to add another fine for blocking bike lanes, currently an illegal act but one with no fine. Before the recess, Wells tried to introduce the amendment, but some other Councilmembers wanted to first hear more research on the appropriate size of the fine.

Wells spoke with DDOT about the appropriate fine and compiled information on the level in other cities ($100 in San Francisco, $115 in Chicago and New York, $150 in Oregon). He settled on $65, just above the level of the double parking fine, but not so high as to create a financial burden or deter enforcement.

Drivers who blocked a bike lane while double parking would probably not receive two tickets, since according to Wells, most of the time MPD officers write only one ticket for the "primary infraction", but may (though usually do not) write both tickets. Since not all bike lanes parallel parking lanes, Wells pointed out, we need a fine for parking in the bike lane especially for those instances when the officer couldn't write a double parking ticket, but also to make clear that blocking a bike lane is more hazardous than just double parking in a vehicle lane.

Graham accepted the amendment as friendly and Phil Mendelson, who had raised some of the questions before, spoke up to praise the new amendment (and the bill itself). Mendelson specifically cited a recent case where a police officer killed a pedestrian on Wisconsin Avenue, but was not punished because the area had poor sight lines. As Mendelson pointed out, poor visibility is not an excuse for drivers to drive too quickly for conditions and hit pedestrians.

Carol Schwartz supported the bill but also took the opportunity to chide pedestrians and bicyclists who cross against lights.

The bill passed with no opposition on voice vote.

27 comments — Share	— tags: bike lanes, bike safety, Carol Schwartz, DC, DC Council, pedestrian safety, Phil Mendelson, Tommy Wells

New Council structure announced; Wells joins key committee (Dec 24, 2008)
Have DC Councilmembers ever tried to park downtown on a Saturday? (Dec 17, 2008)
WABA letter and Graham bill for bike safety (Oct 7, 2008)
Mara, the bicycle Republican (Sep 5, 2008)
Council balks at bike lane parking fines (Jul 16, 2008)

Comments

Since not all bike lanes parallel parking lanes, Wells pointed out, we need a fine for parking in the bike lane especially for those instances when

Something's missing here.

by Michael P on Sep 16, 2008 1:16 pm

Fixed, thanks.

by David Alpert on Sep 16, 2008 1:18 pm

Look Lance. Council members are asking for evidence before creating policy. "Councilmembers wanted to first hear more research on the appropriate size of the fine."

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 1:20 pm

Mendelson hates the police. They can do no wrong in his mind- violent criminals running free would be preferable in his mind.

He needs to be voted out as soon as humanly possible... This was one of his few reasonable actions.

Also, I'm as pro-pedestrian as anyone, but is anyone else concerned with the $250 fine? I think this could be used as a revenue tool by the govt. If the car is being reckless it's one thing, but if they merely didn't yield for a jaywalker it would be another.

by SG on Sep 16, 2008 1:57 pm

ok - so I got in a debate with my husband this morning when we saw a cab pull to the curb to drop his fare. He cut across and mostly blocked a bike lane. he'd pulled through a green, then merged right to stop. A cyclist coming through the intersection on that same green had to brake and swerve.

we both agreed the cab had wrongly cut off another vehicle, but we debated whether it was legal for a cabbie to block a bike lane when dropping a fare. He claimed yes, they should pull out of traffic to drop fares but I claimed no, they should never block a bike lane.

Which is it?

by sophiagrrl on Sep 16, 2008 2:20 pm

Carol Schwartz supported the bill but also took the opportunity to chide pedestrians and bicyclists who cross against lights.

On behalf of DC cyclists and pedestrians, I say good f'n riddance.

by jeff on Sep 16, 2008 2:25 pm

Also, I'm as pro-pedestrian as anyone, but is anyone else concerned with the $250 fine?

Um, no. Given that it's currently $50 and no points, and probably never really imposed, not really at all.

Thanks for the concern though.

by ibc on Sep 16, 2008 2:26 pm

"I think this could be used as a revenue tool by the govt."

I hear this complaint all the time wrt to traffic enforcement, particularly red light cams. But my question is: so what? If it's just a tax, why do I care when it's taxing an undesireable activity? Even if it has no effect to diminish the activity, at least we'd be benefiting from it and then maybe we could lower taxes on activities we don't want to discourage, like working or eating out at a restaurant.

by Reid on Sep 16, 2008 2:26 pm

I don't think failure to yield to jaywalkers is what this is about. Two examples:

Monday night I was walking home from the Harris Teeter in AdMo and I started to cross 16h at W St with the walk signal. I was forced to stop in the middle of 16th street by not one but four cars that turned left from W onto 16th in front of me. (A fifth car actually waited and let me finish crossing the street.)

This morning, crossing 10th St where it intersects with Massachusetts, I (and five other people) had to step out into traffic because a car was waiting at the light square in the middle of the crosswalk. (An MDP officer on a motorcycle was waiting at the intersection, but didn't do anything)

Is this the sort of thing that the fine is meant to punish?

by Steve on Sep 16, 2008 2:27 pm

Look Lance. Council members are asking for evidence before creating policy. "Councilmembers wanted to first hear more research on the appropriate size of the fine."

Bianchi, I have no problem with "more evidence". Actually, I think I even said somewhere that I have no problem with people giving suggestions. What I had a problem with was your statement which seemed to infer that someone from the outside had a right to dictate their wished ... based on this evidence. It's the "dictate" part I had a problem with ... not the part about submitting evidence.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 2:30 pm

Lance, I never indicated "dictate". I said exactly what I meant and nothing more - that I value policy-making based on evidence - and I used the bulb-outs as a very good example. Again, the neighborhood expressed a problem -traffic too fast. DDOT has evidence bulb-outs work to slow traffic. Citizen expressed doubt that the suggested solution of bulb-outs will work. Khalid held firm in expressing the evidence. Period.

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 2:39 pm

SG said: "Also, I'm as pro-pedestrian as anyone, but is anyone else concerned with the $250 fine? I think this could be used as a revenue tool by the govt. If the car is being reckless it's one thing, but if they merely didn't yield for a jaywalker it would be another."

I share some of your concern here ... Actually, a lot of it. The only way a driver will be able to drive in the District AND ensure there is no opportunity for a policeman to trump up a charge here will be for a driver to only proceed through a crosswalk when there isn't a pedestrian within 100 feet of it ... And THIS will bring the District's traffic to a screeching halt ... Worse than gridlock.

This is because the District's pedestrians have a bad habit of just "taking the right of way" whether a car is already in the middle of the road, getting ready to cross, or whatever. (My guess is that it's probably due to the cell phones and iPods permanently attached to their ears ... 'cause it wasn't always that way ... )

Something will have to give ... either pedestrians will have to start getting fined for not recognizing that their "right of way" is predicated on someone (i.e., a car or bicycle) not already being in the intersection, or get ready to expect massive traffic jams. The whole idea of a "shared space" predicated on common sense ruling the day will have been pushed that much further away from reality.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 2:39 pm

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 2:40 pm

Lance, please read my comment again. I said it is difficult to get policy makers and the community to accept evidence. Please stop ascribing thoughts and motivations to me which are non-existent except in your imagination. What part of "accept" reads as "dictate" to you?

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 2:46 pm

Bianchi you said: "This type of evidence- based policy-making is needed throughout and across government agencies."

You used the phrase "policy making". To me this indicated that you wanted to see some central policy maker make the decision as to what type of shelter (if any) should go in there ... versus the people directly affected (i.e., the homeowner behind the bus stop and the riders in the neighborhood.) If I misunderstood this, then I apologize for thinking you meant that someone other than those affected should decide what to build (or whether to build at all.)

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 2:57 pm

I was commenting directly on Khalids defense of the evidence that bulb-outs are useful in slowing traffic, and wishing that more policies were informed by evidence. Nothing about the shelter in there.

by Bianchi on Sep 16, 2008 3:36 pm

@ Bianchi, What do you think about the new $250 fine for a motorist/bicyclist finding themselves riding over a crosswalk when a pedestrian opts to step off the curb and into that crosswalk? Fair? Not fair? In line with "share the road" objectives?

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 4:47 pm

Woohoo! This is great news. Many other great cycling cities in the US already have such fines in place. Now let's just hope the MPD enforces the new rule.

by Abby on Sep 16, 2008 4:53 pm

Lance: The $250 fine could only be levied against drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians who have the legal right of way. So if a pedestrian is crossing against a light, the driver doesn't have to yield (but still can't hit the pedestrian).

by David Alpert on Sep 16, 2008 5:49 pm

My wife used to work in downtown and at least every two weeks she told me of how she or someone she witnessed was nearly run over by red light runners or some other crazy driver. One time a cop on foot witnessed her near death by a-hole motorist and chased down the car at the next light and pulled them over and most people around applauded him. She and most others always obeyed the signals. Good for D.C. to up the fines.

by NikolasM on Sep 16, 2008 6:28 pm

David, I'm referring to a situation where there isn't a light. For example, at a 4 way stop. A driver (or bicyclist) can be in the process of driving through an intersection when a pedestrian opts to step from the curb to an area near where the car is passing. The pedestrian may be intending to wait for the car (or bike) to finish passing, BUT a traffic officer could easily issue a ticket here to the motorist (or bicyclist) for "not yielding the right of way" ... It wouldn't matter if both the pedestrian and the motorist (or bicyclist) were using common sense to "share the road". An officer intent on giving a ticket could ... and the result would be a $250 fine PLUS points on a license. I think SG has a point ...

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 7:37 pm

BTW David, I'm in complete agreement about the $250 fine for the situation you describe ... but I do see the problem SG mentioned ... and I guess it exists already, but the consequences aren't as dire.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Lance: We have to assume some discretion on the part of the police. In fact, the definition of "failing to yield" was kept deliberately somewhat vague so that officers can use their discretion. If you're turning across a crosswalk and pedestrians have started crossing but are far away, is that ok? The intent is that only actual unsafe behavior be ticketed.

Of course, leaving it up to the police can be risky. Maybe they will over-enforce and use the law to go after people that shouldn't be ticketed. Or, perhaps more likely at the moment, they will under-enforce and not really ticket people at all.

I'm nervous about that, for sure. Look at NYPD which is engaged in a program of harassment against Critical Mass bike riders. Laws that let them use judgment to ticket people mean opportunities to ticket people otherwise obeying the law but whom the NYPD simply want to take out. At the moment, we don't have that problem with MPD, but who knows what the future will bring.

by David Alpert on Sep 16, 2008 10:54 pm

"At the moment, we don't have that problem with MPD, but who knows what the future will bring."

It was less than 10 years ago that during a World Bank meeting that the MPD locked up 4 or 5 busloads of people who just happened to be walking or bikng in the vicinty of the World Bank that day ... And kept them locked up in those buses for something like 24 hours without access to water or restrooms ... And THEN (after the meeting ended) let them all go with a "sorry". The people locked up included tourists, people working in the area, cyclists just cycling through, and even a reporter or two. A few may have been the targeted protestors. Most weren't. CM Graham demanded an investigation, but I don't think anything ever came of the matter ... except that a few years later we got a new police chief.

by Lance on Sep 16, 2008 11:14 pm

Let's be clear. If a pedestrian is crossing in a crosswalk (legally), cars have to come to a complete stop, not yield, regardless of which lane the pedestrian is in at the time. The Council change the law from yield to complete stop a couple of years ago.

by Logan13R on Sep 17, 2008 4:19 am

@ Logan13R, I can see where in some instances this is reasonable (e.g., on a mid-block crosswalk on 15th Street NW), but in most instances this is unreasonable (e.g. downtown intersections where you have right on red or a four way stop.) Since the law allowing ticketing is soooo broad, the end result is that it is left up to the police officer to decide to enforce "or let it go". That's the problem SG brought up. I.e., You could be doing absolutely nothing wrong (for the circumstances at hand) but the law is written such that an officer can indeed fine you if they wish. This is bad enough at $50 ... but $250 and points compounds the problem. Of course, if you're a Councilmember you can be sure the officer will choose to use their discretion not to ticket. I'm not so confident the result would be the same for the rest of us ...

by Lance on Sep 17, 2008 9:23 am