baltimorespokes

Follow up to Not Blocking or Parking in Dedicated Bike Lanes

By Michael Jackson
 

Thanks for sharing your concerns with the intended
recommendation to MBPAC not to support the proposal to prohibit parking in bike
lanes.  I have reviewed your concerns and offer the following responses.

 

First, this is to say that there is sympathy for the results
that are intended; an elimination or at least reduction of motorists blocking
bike lanes by parking in them. In addition to this result it is my
understanding that a side benefit is to increase additional respect for
bicyclists by not encroaching on marked bike lanes by parked vehicles. There is
no objection to these aims. The objection is with the strategy being proposed.

 

As I mentioned at the legislative discussion passing new
legislation is a useful tool but is not always the most appropriate means of
getting something accomplished. In this case the legislative proposal has the
following disadvantages:

 

·        
It is redundant as it adds a new law where the same result can
be achieved better by using existing laws.

 

·        
In the event this proposal  is enacted the average citizen
is unlikely to be aware of such a law in the absence of signage, which you feel
would be unneeded, let alone visitors from other jurisdictions driving within
Maryland.

 

·        
The concept as currently proposed would eliminate the
possibility of part-time bike lanes, successfully used in other places, where
bike lanes are in effective at certain times of day such as rush hours, but
parking is allowed in other times of the day.

 

·        
It takes time and effort away from the pursuit of other
legislative proposals that are also being proposed.

 

Redundancy

 

Annotated Code of Maryland Transportation Volume, Section
21-1003 (j) already provides a remedy to parking in bike lanes. It reads, Places
where stopping is prohibited by signs. – A person may not stop,
stand, or park a vehicle at any place where stopping is prohibited by an
official sign”. In response to your concern about people double parking
and blocking bike lanes striped next to on-street parking State law already
prohibits this practice.

 

Section 21-1003 (r) Standing or parking vehicles alongside of
other stopped or parked vehicles– A person may not stand or park a vehicle
on the roadway side of any other vehicle that is stopped or parked at the edge
or curb of a highway”. Therefore the Baltimore Police Department has
grounds to ticket double parked vehicles that block the Roland Avenue bike
lanes.

 

Awareness

 

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 edition,
states in Section 5B.01 that “The purpose of a regulatory sign is to
inform highway users of traffic laws or regulations, and to indicate the applicability
of legal requirements that would not otherwise be apparent.” If the
public is parking in bike lanes and desire exists for people not do that then
signs placed where parking in bike lanes is a problem is the established and
most cost effective manner to communicate that information not only to the
public but also to law enforcement personnel charged with ticketing violators.  

 

Part Time Bike Lanes

 

It has been my experience in drawing up engineering plans for
bike lanes that often there is a political conflict over parking removal. In
some places where bike lanes are desirable there isn’t sufficient
political support to overcome opposition to losing existing on-street parking where
there isn’t room for both. However demand for parking varies depending on
time of day and day of week. Examples include less demand during rush hours and
more demand for parking during religious services at churches, temples, etc. Bike
lanes/parking can be designated for certain hours. The proposal as written
would eliminate that type of flexibility.

 

Dilution of 2011 Legislative Advocacy

 

Jim Swift, Patrick Sheehan and I are unlikely to be the only
ones to question the need for a statewide ban on parking in bike lanes
proposal. It is foreseeable that questions will be raised with all of the legislative
proposals being considered this year.  Based on the above discussion why
devote time and effort trying to get this proposal passed when existing means
are available to achieve the desired outcomes. Efforts made in advocating this
proposal could, in my opinion, be better spent on other legislative proposals.

 

The following is to reply to your other comments.

 

You said:

 

“But isn’t the same argument valid for permitting
parking in a bike lane? Shouldn’t come down to what’s the general accepted use
and sign the alternate use as it would be cheaper? After all a bike lane is for
exclusive or priority use by bicycles.”

 

A general principle of traffic law is everything is permitted
unless it is prohibited. While there are exceptions, these exceptions simply
prove the general principle. Legally speaking in Maryland a bike lane is defined
as “any portion of a roadway or shoulder designated for single
directional bicycle flow.” Even by your definition of bike lane priority
use means that bike lanes are not always exclusively for bicyclists. This
proposal goes against the general principle of traffic law and because there
are existing ways of achieving the desired results, the proposal isn’t
justifiable.

 

You said:

 

“The counter argument was but “No
Parking” signs are cheap, something like $40 each (assuming we already
have a pole to hang them on, otherwise it is more like $200 a piece including
labor.) Well lets look at that. By my estimate Baltimore Metro (just a small
part of the State) needs minimally about 300 miles of bike lanes to truly have
a bicycles as transportation network just in the urban designated areas. So
let’s do the math: 2 signs per block * 2 sides of the road * 10 blocks per mile
(in the city that’s a higher number) * 300 miles * $40 a sign = $480,000. (Can
I round that up to a half a million?) Not to mention under the State’s current
policies they will not allow Federal funding for signs. Even SHA gave up
marking shoulders as bike lanes because of the expense of signs.”

 

My first response is that signing is the most cost effective
manner of relaying parking prohibition information to citizens and law
enforcement officers, as well as visitors from out of state. Signing is the
status quo solution. The bicycling community and the legislature did not have a
problem with SHA spending money urging motorists to give bicyclists a minimum
of 3 feet when passing (see attachment).  This is less cost effective than
signing but in the case of publicizing 3 foot passing minimums signing is not a
reasonable strategy. The point is that less cost effective ways of promoting public
bicycling awareness has been supported by the bicycling community. Therefore
objecting to spending money on signs seems inconsistent with the consensus of
the bike community to spend money on bicycling when needed.

 

My second response is that even accepting a need for 300 miles
of bike lanes in the Baltimore metropolitan area, this is not going to happen
overnight. Therefore a half million dollar cost of signs would be spread out
over the many years that it would take to achieve the goal of 300 miles of bike
lanes throughout multiple jurisdictions, again making this affordable. Actually
since bike lanes either have to marked by pavement markings or signs, pavement
markings are ultimately more expensive than signs because pavement markings
have to be replaced sooner. If you are going to have bike lanes, bike lane
signs are expected and where you need to install no parking signs the
combination No parking/bike lane sign kills two birds with one stone (see
attachment).

 

Finally SHA’s rationale concluding that the costs of
converting shoulders into bike lanes was financially infeasible was not
supported by the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
The costs they projected was unnecessary in my opinion. I had experience with
such shoulder into bike lane conversions at reasonable costs versus the exorbitant
cost projections SHA made, during my stint as the City of San Diego’s
Bicycle Coordinator. Unfortunately SHA had not had similar experiences of bike
lane installation at the time of this discussion.  

 

You stated:

 

“My argument I presented at the meeting was: what
about bike lanes next to parking like in Roland Park (Starbucks), you can’t
sign “No Parking” there. I was countered with: but isn’t double
parking illegal? Which I countered with: but police need due cause to give
tickets, if the cars are not blocking the car travel lane is there due cause to
give a ticket without this law? “

Section 21-1003 (r) Standing or parking vehicles alongside of
other stopped or parked vehicles– A person may not stand or park a vehicle
on the roadway side of any other vehicle that is stopped or parked at the edge
or curb of a highway”. Therefore the Baltimore Police Department has
grounds to ticket double parked vehicles that block the Roland Avenue bike
lanes.

 

You stated:

 

I feel very strongly that the facility that accommodates
both cyclists and parking is a shoulder not a bike lane. Once it is designated
a bike lane there should be no standing cars (unless to make a right turn.)
That is best engineering practices IMHO and it would be very helpful if MBPAC
would support this legislation.

 

I too,  prefer bike lanes next to parking to have solid
striping on both sides of the bike lane for better designation. However bike
lanes can be created with just striping on the moving motor vehicle side,
despite your opinion.  I don’t think this proposal would outlaw bike
lanes with striping just on one side and don’t think such a provision is
needed given the existing dearth of such facilities.

 

Finally you said

 

So I am asking those that agree that parking should be
prohibited in bike lanes to write to Michael Jackson mjackson3@mdot.state.md.us
the State Director of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Jim Swift jks36@verizon.net
the Chairman of the Maryland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. (MBPAC)
And please be polite! these folks are great supporters of our cause but all
engineers are subject to “Oh, but I got an engineering fix for that
problem.” I have fallen victim to that kind of thinking myself from time
to time. So please thank them for their support to date.

 

I want to thank you very much for this appeal for civility. It
is greatly appreciated. In this case our opposition to this proposal is that a
new legal solution isn’t needed when an existing legal solution already
exists that will more effectively communicate to law enforcement and the public
rules about not blocking bike lanes.

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

In this story by Michael Dresser he states:

"There’s a lot of merit to the idea of creating an enhanced version of negligent driving to cover cases that are grossly negligent but not willful. But the proposal being advanced by the advocates carries the flaw of many such laws: It punishes the result and not the conduct. It would make more sense to create a misdemeanor charge of "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that could be applied whether or not a victim died. One year should suffice as a penalty; three strikes me as overkill unless there was actual intent to cause harm."

Since when has the law turned a blind eye to the extent of damage done? Since when has the law been restricted to treating bodily harm the same as property damage?

Speeding fines increase as the chance of more severe damage goes up (the faster you go the higher the fines.) Increase fines in work and school zones, both are related to the increase potential of harming people and not just "the cause."

Lets take an extreme example: someone takes a baseball bat and hits the corner of your brick house to do damage and all they end up doing is breaking their bat. Now if the baseball bat was applied to a person the charge should be exactly the same as above? After all the intent is the same.

"Actual intent to cause harm" for negligence??? Seriously look up the concept we are talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

If someone is negligent and ends up wrapping their car around a telephone pole, that is sort of self serving justice, the telephone pole can be replaced but people cannot be replaced or fixed up in the same way as a telephone pole.

***Edit***: I should point out that we do have "grossly negligent driving contributing to a crash" that ‘s basically DUI, as very few other things will qualify for "grossly negligent ". Causing a crash or killing people while under the influence may help to get the maximum penalties for DUI but you could get maximum penalties without causing a crash or hurting someone. There is nothing "extra" legally required for DUI for crashing or killing.

Michael concludes with a red herring that bicyclists are exempt from this purposed new law and somehow one death a year nation wide (if that on average) is more tragic then 35,000 to 43,000 deaths a year by automobiles and the fact that the automobile is the leading cause of death of our next generation of Marylanders (and that is mostly kids INSIDE the automobile.) Sorry Michael but bicycles are vehicles by Maryland law and this will apply to cyclists as well as drivers. I am very disappointed that Michael is perpetuating the myth that bicyclists conciser themselves above the law when all we are asking for is that killing a person whether in a car or not should not be looked at as just collateral damage of a system that puts more emphasis on fast travel over safe travel. IMHO this is a very shameful detractor put forth by Michael and has no bases in the facts.

If people could write Michael in a less inflammatory manner then what I have done here, please do so.

Continue reading “The flaw in our our proposed bill – it does not treat damaging a person the same as damaging a car”