Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
ELITE ELITE:  0
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 85

Thread: Virginia Legislation Action Thread

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Please keep us updated on the house response to SB959. As I've mentioned in other threads, I think that one has the most potential impact to cyclists, walkers, joggers, wheelchair users, and anyone else who uses a road with something other than a car. Do you know if the Loudon Sheriff's office presented evidence in form of citations for speeding, failure to yield the right of way in a crosswalk, entering a crosswalk in disregard of traffic, etc., that they have utilized existing law to improve safety at those crosswalks, that the existing law is insufficient, and that a dramatic change in the expectation of road users at crosswalks is necessary? I suspect that much more could be done to slow down traffic at those crosswalks and increase the level of caution that motorists exhibit when approaching a crosswalk so that they can properly yield the right of way if necessary.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madison Manor
    Posts
    1,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Regarding SB959/HB2217 (the trail stop sign bill), I realize that I am playing arm-chair quarterback, but it seems that the best way to manage it is to either: 1) get it sent back for reconsideration after a study is done on how to make crossings more safe; or 2) add on additional amendments to either improve the bill or mitigate its abuse, such as establishing a 15 or 20 mph maximum speed for motor vehicles at crossings, requiring motor vehicles to yield when pedestrians/users are at a crossing (not just in a crossing), requiring local law enforcement to provide public reporting on actions taken against trail users and motor vehicles at crossings.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    773
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'm pleased to report that SB1060 (following too closely/three feet to pass) sailed out of committee (14-0) and is now before the full Senate for a vote. The moped bill died (a sad and slow speed death).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    262
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    By the way, I have to give a shout-out to the woman that answered the phone at Senator Favola's office this morning. I'm sure she heard from a lot of us today, but she made me feel like she was genuinely interested in what I had to say nor did she rush me. She took down my information and repeated it to make sure she had it written correctly and would pass it along. And, she gave a hearty thank you for calling. I hung up from the call just feeling happier about my day. I unfortunately didn't get her name, but wanted to say a public kudos to her.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vienna, VA
    Posts
    1,082
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    To be honest, I was happy to write the first four emails about bike issues. But I had to think long and hard about the moped. I mean sure, who doesn't get a 2:00 am craving for a half-smoke and a Slurpee that's when pulling the moped out for a ride to 7-11 makes perfect sense. On the other hand, you don't need a license to ride one, a loophole I'm sure my elderly mother will be only too happy to exploit in the near future. But because e-bikes are on the horizon, and alternative transportation is something we are trying to find, I caved.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    Posts
    571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acc View Post
    To be honest, I was happy to write the first four emails about bike issues. But I had to think long and hard about the moped. I mean sure, who doesn't get a 2:00 am craving for a half-smoke and a Slurpee that's when pulling the moped out for a ride to 7-11 makes perfect sense. On the other hand, you don't need a license to ride one, a loophole I'm sure my elderly mother will be only too happy to exploit in the near future. But because e-bikes are on the horizon, and alternative transportation is something we are trying to find, I caved.
    It's a loophole that I am happily "exploiting" and I'm not a senior citizen. I'm not allowed to ride my ebike on the custis, and this bill would prevent me from riding on lee hwy. how am I supposed to get to work??? BS!

    By the way, thank you. I sent an email voicing my opposition.
    Last edited by jnva; 01-23-2013 at 07:04 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    773
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terpfan View Post
    Glad to see HB1950 passed out of committee. Isn't that the one that died in committee last year? I reached out to some local legislators and made a non-traditional appeal on the matter that I hoped may catch their attention.
    Just reported (without confirmation, but I trust the source) that HB1950 died in an unrecorded floor vote in the House.

    Also, the House analog to Favola's SB959 (stop signs on trails, opening the door to harassment) is HB2217, and it passed out of Transportation Subcommittee #2 with an amendment. I've asked Del. Greason for a copy of the amendment, as I have no reports from the hearing.

    Just to let folks know, the passage of SB959/HB2217 is looking likely, as there are few points ahead at which friends of cycling will be able to improve the bill. I don't know when it'll be put on the agenda, but the next step for the House bill is consideration before the Transportation Committee. Members and email here.

    Remember, it's an unnecessary bill (cyclists and pedestrians already have a duty to not enter the road in disregard of approaching traffic) and creates an opportunity for revenue-raising harassment of cyclists who fail to put a foot down at every stop sign (something Loudoun County already engages in). And by all reports, Loudoun County was lobbying heavily for it, so you can be sure they're going to try to recover their costs on the W&OD this summer.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    shit, yup, if it flew through committee it's done.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Madison Manor
    Posts
    1,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Just so I understand. The bill against following too closely is now dead, but the bill requiring "full stops" is on its way to passing?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    773
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjclaeys View Post
    Just so I understand. The bill against following too closely is now dead, but the bill requiring "full stops" is on its way to passing?
    One of the bills re: following too closely is dead - the House bill. The other following too closely bill, which includes a requirement to give at least three feet when passing, passed through the Senate. *That* bill will be headed to the House (where, if past is prologue, it will run into significant opposition because many legislators there think giving three feet is unreasonable and also shut up that's why).

    SB959, which would permit localities to require pedestrians and cyclists to come to some undefined "complete stop" has passed through the Senate. It's partner bill in the House has already been met with a warm 6-0 reception in subcommittee.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •