baltimorespokes

By Greg Hinchliffe

I was going to call this “Why I support House Bill 160”, which would legalize sidewalk riding in Maryland unless the locality prohibits it, but, really, the bill does not do much. It merely makes prohibiting sidewalk riding an “opt-in” system, rather than the status quo which is “opt-out”: sidewalk biking is currently banned by the state unless the locality specifically permits it. I suppose as a practical matter, sidewalk riding would be legal in more places, as the issue is probably not a high priority for county and municipal lawmakers. What makes it even more irrelevant is that the existing state and local bans are hardly ever enforced, except for a short time in Baltimore City, when Mayor O’Malley’s administration tried, unsuccessfully, to make the ban a tactical weapon in the War on Drugs.

But, my, oh my, it has engendered some debate, so here is my two cents’ worth. I am Baltimore City resident and an experienced urban cyclist. I don’t bike to work but cycle often for fun, exercise, and to run errands, logging thousands of miles per year. I am confident in traffic and can hold my own in the crosstown rush-hour madness of Lombard or Fayette Street. But I also frequently ride on the sidewalk in certain places, sometimes even against the flow of adjacent traffic. Russell Street around Oriole Park? I am cruising that 20-foot sidewalk. Towsontown Boulevard between Charles Street and greater Towson, where the county has striped what seems to be a dozen 8-foot lanes, all occupied by speeding, distracted motorists? No, thank you. I am lovin’ that new sidewalk as I grind up the hill. I know, I know, I have seen the stats: twice as dangerous to be on the sidewalk as on the road, but here I am. How have I survived the (more than I care to count) decades of playing such bad odds? Simple. I am not an imbecile. Well, maybe I am, but I don’t ride like one. The sidewalk is not the problem.

Some sidewalks ARE dangerous: nasty, narrow things, with blind corners and hordes of pedestrians. Clearly these should not be cycled. But many of our city and suburban sidewalks are much better, with generous width, good sight distances, and few other users. Bicycling on such a facility is not, in itself, dangerous. What IS dangerous is shooting out from that sidewalk into an intersection, appearing suddenly and unexpectedly in the path of a surprised motorist, who had no idea there was a bicycle nearby until it disappeared under his front bumper. I have coined a new name for this spectacularly foolhardy maneuver: Inexcusable Intersection Idiocy, or I.I.I. It is pronounced AY-yi-YI !!! It is also known as Darwin, Unselecting Moronic Bicyclists. You can probably pronounce that one without my help.

In short, the main hazard of sidewalk cycling is not the cycling on the sidewalk part, but extremely poor intersection technique. This dangerous foolishness is what drives the statistics that condemn sidewalk riding, and trail riding as well. And it is a subject for education and regulation, not prohibition. Any cycling-safety course, whether taught by the LAB, WABA, Bike Maryland, the ‘Y’, the scouts, or the school system, should not just teach NOT to ride on the sidewalk, but HOW to ride on the sidewalk, and when it might be safer to do so. They should teach the tenets of safe sidewalk riding. Are there any such tenets? Yes, scads of them. Scads. S.C.A.D.S. Sidewalk cyclists must ride Slowly, Courteously, Alertly, Defensively – Safely. Get it? Scads? Get it? Anyone? Anyone? OK, never mind. Lame. Sorry.

Look, riding on a sidewalk can be dangerous, but so can riding in the dark. The way we deal with night-cycling is by educating about the requirement for reflection and illumination, legislating the equipment required to ride in darkness, and sponsoring light give-aways and discounts. We do NOT prohibit cycling after sunset.

I am further concerned that prohibiting sidewalk riding discourages new cyclists. If faced with the choice between a.) riding on the sidewalk (illegal), or b.) riding in traffic (scary), a less experienced cyclist is likely to choose c.) take the Buick. We need all the cycling allies we can get out there to improve the physical and political cycling climate. We shouldn’t be scaring them away.

In a perfect world, cycling on the sidewalk would never be necessary, due to the superb bike facilities nearby. No, cyclists don’t ride on the sidewalks in Amsterdam, but that’s because they don’t have to. In our decidedly un-Dutch environment, sometimes the sidewalk is part of the cycling space. We should make sure prospective riders know how and when to use it safely. A blanket prohibition does not help.

This is basically an attempt to improve our 3′ safe passing law by getting rid of the narrow highway exception and adding this text to the section of law that governs the overtaking and passing of vehicles:
THE DRIVER OF A VEHICLE MAY NOT OVERTAKE ANOTHER VEHICLE THAT IS GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION UNLESS A SAFE PASSING DISTANCE CAN BE MAINTAINED WHILE THE OTHER VEHICLE IS OVERTAKEN.

I’ve written about MDOT’s poor summery of our narrow exception before. While non of the exceptions are really necessary (cyclist is riding in a manner that is illegal so don’t ticket the driver for a 3′ violation – We need that spelled out? And if it is the cyclist that moves closer the vehicle, how is that the driver’s fault?) but the narrow highway exception was very troubling how MDOT has summarized it and is not easily understood nor applicable to the vast majority of our roadways. Does the legislature really think the police will ticket a driver for passing a cyclist on a one lane highway when both are doing the best they can to do safe passing?

Main page: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=hb0445&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS

This bill will require all cyclists but not moped riders to wear a helmet. (But § 21-1306.1 says moped rider must wear a helmet. So the moped bit is confusing/contradictory.)

1) I will add a new point to this discussion, motorcyclists get this with their mandatory helmet law:
§ 21-1306.1.(e) Failure to use required headgear; evidence; civil actions. —

• (1) The failure of an individual to wear protective headgear required under subsection (b) of this section may not:
• . (i) Be considered evidence of negligence;
• . (ii) Be considered evidence of contributory negligence;
• . (iii) Limit liability of a party or an insurer; or
• . (iv) Diminish recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a moped or motor scooter.

Cyclists should get that as well.

2) From my observations Maryland has a below average number of cyclists. We need to work on getting more cyclists, not making it more restrictive. For more points about Undesirable effects of mandatory helmet use.

3) WABA opposes: Why We Don’t Support Mandatory Helmet Laws

4) Bikeyface makes a great post on SERIOUS ABOUT SAFETY. Let’s work down this list before we get to the last item, OK?

Main page: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&stab=01&id=hb0339&tab=subject3&ys=2013RS

Continue reading “Bike bills for 2013 legislative session”