rider

SURVEY OF STATE LAWS TO PROTECT BICYCLISTS AND OTHER VULNERABLE ROAD USERS FROM SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH

State/City/Source Legislation Comment
Uniform Vehicle Code No MODEL LEGISLATION Could not find vulnerable user or anti-harassment legislation in the model UVC.
American League of Bicyclists Text of Model LegislationVulnerable Road User Law 

Infliction of Serious Injury or Death to Vulnerable Road Users

Section 1: As used herein, the term “vulnerable road user” or VU includes:

(a) a pedestrian, including those persons actually engaged in work upon a highway, or in work upon utility facilities along a highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way; or
(b) a person riding an animal; or
(c) a person lawfully operating any of the following on a public right-of-way, crosswalk, or shoulder of the highway:

1. A bicycle;
2. A farm tractor or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use;
3. A skateboard;
4. Roller skates;
5. In-line skates;
6. A scooter;
7. A moped;
8. Motorcyclists;
9. Horse-drawn carriage drivers;
10. a person on an electric personal assistive mobility device; or
11. a person in a wheelchair.

Section 2:

A person who operates a motor vehicle in a careless or distracted manner and causes serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable road user shall be guilty of infliction of serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable user.

Section 3:

A person issued a citation under this section shall be required to attend a hearing before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Section 4:

A person found to have committed an offense under this statute shall be required to

(a) have his or her driving privileged suspended for a period of no less than 6 months; and one or more of the following:
(b) pay a monetary penalty of not more than two thousand dollars; or
(c) serve a period of incarceration which may not exceed thirty days; or
(d) participate in a motor vehicle accident prevention course; or
(e) perform community service for a number of hours to be determined by the court, which may not exceed two hundred hours.

http://www.bikeleague.org/content/model-legislationNote the existence of their chart. Copy of their chart is at the end of this document.

 

 

Key for Colors Red- Nothing to protect VU, or attempted but failed legislationGreen- LegislationYellow- Proposed in 2012 or 2013 and pending at the time

Blue- Not Actual VU legislation, but laws in place to protect cyclists

 

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona 28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penaltiesA. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.

 

B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:

 

1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.

 

2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.

 

C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.

Statute comes from the transportation code (Title 28) and makes explicit reference to the definition of physical injury as defined in the Criminal Code (Title 13). The penalty provided for violation of the statute, however, is a civil penalty.No explicit definition of or reference to the term vulnerable user.   No Vulnerable User Act.

 

Section C is harsh!

Arkansas A.C.A. § 27-51-311 (2013)Title 27 Transportation

Subtitle 4. Motor Vehicular Traffic

Chapter 51 Operation Of Vehicles — Rules Of The Road

Subchapter 3 — Driving, Overtaking, and Passing

 

 

A.C.A. § 27-51-311 (2013)

 

27-51-311. Overtaking a bicycle.

 

(a) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on a roadway shall exercise due care and pass to the left at a safe distance of not less than three feet (3′) and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken bicycle.

 

(b) (1) A person who violates this section shall be subject to a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100).

 

(2) A person who violates this section with the violation resulting in a collision causing death or serious physical injury to the person operating the overtaken bicycle shall be subject to a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law.

 

 

No explicit definition of or reference to the term vulnerable user.   No Vulnerable User Act.Statute comes from the transportation code (Title 27) and provides for the payment of civil penalties.

 

Important take away from section (b)(2) of this statute is the incorporation of explicit language indicating that this is not the sole remedy available to injured cyclists. Not sure why this isn’t in (b)(1) too.

 

Other language is not to be copied, as it suggests there is only a remedy when there is a collision.

 

HISTORY: Acts 2007, No. 681, § 1.

California Section 23110 Vehicle Code – VEH 

DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 – 23336] ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

 

CHAPTER 12. Public Offenses [23100 – 23249.50] ( Chapter 12 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

 

ARTICLE 1. Driving Offenses [23100 – 23135] ( Heading of Article 1 added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 940, Sec. 9. )

 

 

23110.

 

(a) Any person who throws any substance at a vehicle or any occupant thereof on a highway is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

(b) Any person who with intent to do great bodily injury maliciously and willfully throws or projects any rock, brick, bottle, metal or other missile, or projects any other substance capable of doing serious bodily harm at such vehicle or occupant thereof is guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

(Amended (as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 613) by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 65. Effective June 30, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, pursuant to Secs. 68 and 69 of Ch. 39.)

No explicit vulnerable user act.Definition of vehicle must include bicycle.
Berkeley, CA Chapter 14.26PROHIBITING HARASSMENT OF BICYCLISTS 

Sections:

 

14.26.010   Findings and purpose.

 

14.26.020   Definitions.

 

14.26.030   Prohibited conduct.

 

14.26.040   Remedies.

 

14.26.010 Findings and purpose.

 

Harassment of bicyclists in Berkeley occurs solely based on their status as bicyclists. Persons who harass bicyclists solely based on their status as bicyclists endanger bicyclists and discourage bicyclists from using bicycles for transportation. (Ord. 7221-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

 

14.26.020 Definitions.

 

“Bicycle” shall have the same definition as set forth in Vehicle Code section 231.

 

“Bicyclist” shall mean a person riding a Bicycle. (Ord. 7221-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

 

14.26.030 Prohibited conduct.

 

A person is prohibited by this Section from doing or attempting to do the following:

 

A.   Physically assaulting a Bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

 

B.   Threatening to physically assault or injure a Bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

 

C.   Intentionally injuring a Bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

 

D.   Intentionally distracting a Bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

 

E.   Intentionally forcing a Bicyclist off a roadway for a purpose unrelated to public safety. (Ord. 7221-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

 

14.26.040 Remedies.

 

A.   An aggrieved Bicyclist may bring a civil lawsuit, including a small claims court action, against a person who violates this Chapter.

 

B.   A person who violates this Chapter shall be liable for (1) treble compensatory damages for each violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater, and (2) attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Additionally, a jury or court may award punitive damages, if warranted.

 

C.   Violations of this Chapter shall not be considered a criminal offense, except where the underlying act independent of this Chapter constitutes a criminal offense.

 

D.   The remedies provided in this Section are in addition to other remedies that may be provided by law. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to preclude a Bicyclist from pursuing any other remedy at law in addition to the remedies provided here. (Ord. 7221-NS § 1 (part), 2012)

Not a vulnerable user ordinance; prohibition against harassment of bicyclistsNote that CA laws have an explicit provisions regarding local regulations.

Vehicle Code – VEH

DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 – 23336] ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

CHAPTER 1. Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws [21000 – 21282]   ( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

 

 

 

ARTICLE 3. Local Regulation [21100 – 21117] ( Article 3 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

 

 

Healdsburg, CA FAILED PROPOSED ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. _

An ordinance adding Article IV to Chapter 19 of the Sonoma County Municipal

Code to prohibit harassment of bicyclists because of their status as bicyclists.

THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY OF SONOMA

DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. A new Article IV is added to Chapter 19 of the Sonoma County

Municipal Code to read as follows:

ARTICLE IV

VULNERABLE ROAD USER PROTECTION ORDINANCE

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

After public hearings and receipt of testimony, the Board of Supervisors finds

and declares:

That the County of Sonoma wants to encourage people to walk and ride bicycles

rather than drive motor vehicles in order to lessen traffic congestion and

improve air quality;

That people who walk and ride bicycles are vulnerable users of users of the

County roads;

That harassment of vulnerable users on the basis of their status as people who

walk and ride bicycles exists in the County of Sonoma;

That existing criminal and civil laws do not effectively prevent the unlawful

harassment of vulnerable users because of their status as people who walk and

ride bicycles;

That walking, running, and/or riding a bicycle on County roads poses hazards to

those who choose to use public roads for these purposes, and that these

hazards are amplified by the actions of persons who deliberately harass and

endanger these vulnerable users because of their status as people who walk and

ride bicycles; and

That because people have a right to walk, run and/or ride a bicycle in the

County of Sonoma and should be able to do so safely on County roads, it is

against the public policy of the County of Sonoma to harass these vulnerable

users upon the basis of the person’s status as people who walk and ride

bicycles.

DEFINITIONS.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Article, shall be

construed as defined in this Section.

A. Bicycle. A device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by

human power through a belt, chain or gears, and having one or more wheels.

B. Bicyclist. A person riding a bicycle.

C. Pedestrian. A person who is afoot or who is using a means of conveyance

propelled by human power other than a bicycle, or an electric personal assistive

mobility device. “Pedestrian” includes a person who is operating a self-propelled

wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of

physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as

specified in subdivision

D. Vulnerable User. Bicyclists and Pedestrians using any public sidewalk, road,

street and/or highway that allows use by Bicyclists and Pedestrians.

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

A person shall not do or attempt to do any of the following:

A. Physically assault or attempt to physically assault a Vulnerable User because

of, in whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a Bicyclist or Pedestrian.

B. Threaten to physically injure a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in

part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a Bicyclist or Pedestrian.

C. Intentionally injure, attempt to injure, or threaten to physically injure, either

by words, vehicle, or other object, a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in

part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a Bicyclist or Pedestrian.

D. Intentionally distract or attempt to distract a Vulnerable User because of, in

whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a Bicyclist or Pedestrian.

E. Intentionally force or attempt to force a Vulnerable User off a street for

purposes unrelated to public safety.

F. Pass a Bicyclist at an unsafe distance, which is defined as a minimum of three

feet of clearance between the vehicle and the Bicyclist.

G. Intentionally fail to yield to a Pedestrian walking or running along the

roadway, crossing the roadway, or using a public sidewalk in order to intimidate

or intentionally injure the Pedestrian.

REMEDIES.

A. Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this Article by means of

a civil lawsuit

B. Any person who violates the provisions of this Article shall be liable for treble

the actual damages with regard to each and every such violation, or $1,000,

whichever is greater, and shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

of litigation. In addition, a jury or a court may award punitive damages where

warranted.

C. Violations of any of the provisions of this Article shall not constitute a

misdemeanor or infraction, except where such actions, independently of this

Article, constitute a misdemeanor or infraction.

D. The remedies provided by the provisions of this Article are in addition to all

other remedies provided by law, and nothing in this Article shall preclude any

aggrieved person from pursuing any other remedy provided by law.

Sec. 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be

unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, that

invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance, which can

be implemented without the invalid provisions, and to this end, the provisions

of this ordinance are declared to be severable.

Sec. 3. The County Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have

it published in accordance with County policy, either in a daily newspaper

circulated in the County of Sonoma or by posting for ten days in three public

places in the County.

I hereby certify that this ordinance was passed by the Board of Supervisors of

the County of Sonoma, at its meeting of ________

Healdsburg a Bump in the Road for Bike Coalition’s Vulnerable User OrdinanceThe City Council appeared unwilling to adopt the measure as written, but unable to come up with a plan to either replace it or kill it outright.

 

Posted by Christian Kallen, May 07, 2013

 

The Vulnerable User’s Ordinance, presented to the City Council by the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition in February, finally reached a vote of the Healdsburg City Council Monday night.

The council, meeting without their fifth member, Mayor Susan Jones, could not reach a clear decision on whether to adopt the ordinance or not.

The ordinance was submitted for staff analysis after its introduction by Council Member Tom Chambers, when it was presented by the Bicycle Coalition. At that time it was sent to Police Chief Kevin Burke, whose testimony opened the evaluation of the ordinance.

Chief Burke, speaking extemporaneously for the most part without notes or a script, and (most unusually) without a PowerPoint demonstration, summarized the ordinance that was presented to him, unchanged by Council, from the one presented by the Bicycle Coalition. “What’s different about this measure is it’s a 100% civic ordinance, without criminal penalty,” said Burke.

After looking at the statistics offered in the measure itself, Burke said he was “fairly comfortable in stating we don’t have the type of incidents [in Healdsburg] that have been reported” to the Bicycle Coalition, though he said the records of the Healdsburg Police Department do not allow a seach for such incidents.

He called it a “purely policy” measure, not making a recommendation but saying the measure made sense “only if you want a city code allowing people to sue one another.”

“Virtually every prohibition is already prohibited in civic law,” he added, and he said that the financial impact of the measure would be negligible, since such cases were unlikely to be brought.

It was pointed out that the punitive dimension of the proposed ordinance allowed for “treble damages” and lawyer’s fees to “give it some bite,” as city attorney David Warner described the addition of punitive terms.

So far the City of Sebastopol – along with several other cities outside of Sonoma County, such as Los Angeles, Sunnyvale and Washington, D.C. – has passed this or similar measures. The Town of Windsor rejected the ordinance last month.

The Sonoma County Supervisors passed a reworked version of the measure, that pulled out treble damages, and also eliminated the definition of an unsafe distance to a cyclist as three feet. This was changed to “a reasonable distance” in the County version.

One of the hesitations expressed by several City Council members was that this was not a problem in Healdsburg, but in outlying county areas such as Skaggs Springs Road, the Bohemian Highway, Petaluma Hill Road and Chalk Hill Road.

Gary Helfrich, executive director of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, spoke from the audience in advocacy of the issue, pointing out that its passage would define harassment, which is currently not defined, and thus reduce frivolous suits. But his primary argument was the City of Healdsburg’s “brand” – if Healdsburg wants to be perceived as a bike-friendly community, one that has no tolerance for harassment of cyclists or pedestrians, passing this ordinance would make a statement.

Also speaking from the public, Richard Cafferata, a produce truck driver, said “Westside Road could be Blood Alley,” warning of inevitable accidents from cyclists riding two and three abreast, and suggesting cyclists need to learn “more respect” for cars.

He also outlined several steps that could be taken to regulate cyclists, including requiring registration and license plates, having insurance “like drivers and everyone else,” and becoming educated on the rules of the road.

“Give ‘em a book on the rules of the road,” he said. “Understand it, and abide by it.”

His suggestions were a common point of general agreement, although the Vulnerable Users Ordinance does not address any of them.

A member of the Bicycle Coalition, Rich Buttarini of Healdsburg, pointed out that bicycles were a part of daily life in Healdsburg, and since they were an important part of our community, “For our economic interest we have in Healdsburg, it’s very important to take a strong position” in favor of cyclist protection.

When the argument returned to Council, however, a split between members was immediately clear.

Council Member Sean McCaffery inexplicably suggested that passing the ordinance would make cyclists “less cautious and aware,” thinking they were protected by it.

“People have to realize that it’s dangerous on a bike,” McCaffery said. “Passing this sends a wrong message that you don’t have to watch out for yourself.”

Council Member Gary Plass was even more critical, saying that the issue was one of education on both sides, not “creating another layer of bureaucracy” with a set of laws that are not needed. “There’s no reason to be proactive when we don’t have a problem.”

Plass also read extensively from an unidentified attorney he consulted who was not in favor of the measure. He finished with a statement to that effect that since Healdsburg is already a bicycle friendly community, and there’s no need for this ordinance.

(Technically the term “Bike Friendly” is awarded to communities that meet a certain set of criteria and pass the evaluation of the League of American Bicyclists. Healdsburg has failed to attain this status, though the neighboring City of Sonoma has.)

If the arguments, such as they were, became confused, the parliamentary motions that followed did little to clear the air. Since the measure was introduced as New Business, it could have passed on to the Consent Calendar for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting (the next one is scheduled for June 3).

But no one made a motion to reject the measure – Plass moved to “not proceed with this tonight” (clarification on the wording of his motion should soon become available in the City Council minutes) which failed on a 1-3 vote.

After discussion, a subsequent movement was made by Council Member Tom Chambers to send the measure to the city Transportation Commission to evaluate it against the Sonoma County’s similar but not identical measure. The movement had some trouble finding a second, but when McCaffrey seconded the vote was 2-2 split.

Technically a 2-2 vote means the movement has failed, but since the Council had adopted no clear motion with no clear vote, the question of the ordinance’s viability remained moot.

City Manager Marjie Pettus reminded the Council that this confusion was a question of establishing Council protocol, and it has come up before. “There has been no clear decision, and the council failed to send it to the transportation commission.

 

Los Angeles, CA Ordinance 181817 ORDINANCE NO. __ 1_8_1_8_1_7__

An ordinance adding Article 5.10 to Chapter IV of the Los Angeles Municipal

Code to prohibit harassment of bicyclists because of their status as bicyclists.

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. A new Article 5.10 is added to Chapter IV of the Los Angeles

Municipal Code to read as follows:

ARTICLE 5.10

PROHIBITION AGAINST HARASSMENT OF BICYCLISTS

SEC.45.96.00. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

After public hearings and receipt of testimony, the City Council finds and

declares:

That the City of Los Angeles wants to encourage people to ride bicycles

rather than drive motor vehicles in order to lessen traffic congestion and improve

air quality;

That harassment of bicyclists on the basis of their status as bicyclists

exists in the City of Los Angeles;

That existing criminal and civil laws do not effectively prevent the unlawful

harassment of bicyclists because of their status as bicyclists;

That riding a bicycle on City streets poses hazards to bicyclists, and that

these hazards are amplified by the actions of persons who deliberately harass

and endanger bicyclists because of their status as bicyclists; and

That because people have a right to ride a bicycle in the City of Los

Angeles and should be able to do so safely on City streets, it is against the public

policy of the City of Los Angeles to harass a bicyclist upon the basis of the

person’s status as a bicyclist.

SEC. 45.96.01. DEFINITIONS.

The following words and phrases, whenever used in this Article, shall be

construed as defined in this Section. Words and phrases not defined herein shall be

construed as defined in Section 12.03 of this Code, if defined therein.

A. Bicycle. A device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively

by human power through a belt, chain or gears, and having one or more wheels.

1

B. Bicyclist A person riding a bicycle.

SEC. 45.96.02. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.

A person shall not do or attempt to do any of the following:

A. Physically assault or attempt to physically assault a Bicyclist because of,

in whole or in part, the Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

B. Threaten to physically injure a Bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the

Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

C. Intentionally injure, attempt to injure, or threaten to physically injure, either

by words, vehicle, or other object, a Bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the

Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

D. Intentionally distract or attempt to distract a Bicyclist because of, in whole

or in part, the Bicyclist’s status as a Bicyclist.

E. Intentionally force or attempt to force a Bicyclist off a street for purposes

unrelated to public safety.

SEC. 45.96.03. REMEDIES.

A. Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this Article by means

of a civil lawsuit.

B. Any person who violates the provisions of this Article shall be liable for

treble the actual damages with regard to each and every such violation, or $1,000,

whichever is greater, and shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of

litigation. In addition, a jury or a court may award punitive damages where warranted.

C. Notwithstanding Section 11.00(m) of this Code, violations of any of the

provisions of this Article shall not constitute a misdemeanor or infraction, except where

such actions, independently of this Article, constitute a misdemeanor or infraction.

D. The remedies provided by the provisions of this Article are in addition to

all other remedies provided by law, and nothing in this Article shall preclude any

aggrieved person from pursuing any other remedy provided by law.

Sec. 2. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be

unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, that

invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance, which can be

implemented without the invalid provisions, and to this end, the provisions of this

ordinance are declared to be severable.

2

Sec. 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it

published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated

in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public places in the City of

Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the

Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street

entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located

at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records.

I hereby certify that this ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of

Los Angeles, at its meeting of _JUt 2 0 2.011

 

 

http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-2895_ord_181817.pdfNote that CA laws have an explicit provisions regarding local regulations.

Vehicle Code – VEH

DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 – 23336] ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

CHAPTER 1. Obedience to and Effect of Traffic Laws [21000 – 21282]   ( Chapter 1 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

 

 

 

ARTICLE 3. Local Regulation [21100 – 21117] ( Article 3 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

 

 

Santa Rosa, CA ORDINANCE NO. 4007ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA ADDING CHAPTER 10-42 TO THE SANTA ROSA CITY CODE ENTITLED “VULNERABLE USER PROTECTION”THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

A new Chapter 10-42 is added to Title 10 of the Santa Rosa City Code to read as follows:

“10-42.010 Findings and Purpose.

(A) The City of Santa Rosa encourages people to walk and ride bicycles rather than drive motor vehicles in order to lessen traffic congestion, improve air quality, and improve public health.

(B) People walking and riding bicycles are vulnerable users of the City roads, sidewalks, and/or pathways.

(C) Walking, running, and/or riding a bicycle on City roads and/or pathways poses hazards to those who choose to use public roads, and/or pathways for these purposes, and these hazards are amplified by the actions of persons who deliberately harass and endanger these vulnerable users because of their status as pedestrians and/or persons riding bicycles.

(D) People have a right to walk, run and/or ride a bicycle in the City of Santa Rosa and should be able to do so safely on City roads and/or pathways where allowed. It is against the public policy of the City of Santa Rosa to permit harassment of these vulnerable users due to a person’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

10-42.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words are defined as follows:

(A) “Bicycle” means a device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human power through a belt, chain or gears, and having one or more wheels.

(B) “Pedestrian” means a person who is afoot or who is using a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle, or an electric personal assistive mobility device. “Pedestrian” includes a person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

Ord. No. 4007

Page 2 of 3

(C) “Vulnerable User” means pedestrians and people riding bicycles using any public

road, and/or pathway that allows use by persons riding bicycles and/or pedestrians.

10-42.030 Prohibited activities.

A person shall not do or attempt to do any of the following:

(A) Physically assault or attempt to physically assault a Vulnerable User because of, in

whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

(B) Threaten to physically injure a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in part, a

Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

(C) Intentionally injure, attempt to injure, or threaten to physically injure, either by words,

vehicle, or other object, a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s

status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

(D) Intentionally distract or attempt to distract a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or

in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

(E) Intentionally force or attempt to force a Vulnerable User off a street for purposes

unrelated to public safety.

(F) Intentionally fail to yield to a pedestrian walking or running along a road, crossing the

roadway, or using a public sidewalk or pathway in order to intimidate or intentionally injure the

pedestrian.

10-42.040 Civil remedies.

(A) Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this chapter by means of a civil

lawsuit. Any person who violates the provisions of this Article shall be liable for treble the

actual damages with regard to each and every violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater, and shall

be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. In addition, a jury or court may

award punitive damages where warranted. In addition, the remedies available under this section

shall be in addition to, and shall not in any way restrict, any other rights or remedies available

under law.

(B) Violations of any of the provisions of this chapter shall not constitute a misdemeanor

or infraction, except where such actions, independently of this chapter, constitute a misdemeanor

or infraction.

(C) The remedies provided by the provisions of this chapter are in addition to all other

remedies provided by law, and nothing in this chapter shall preclude any aggrieved person from

pursuing any other remedy provided by law and do not supersede or limit any and all other

Ord. No. 4007

Page 3 of 3

remedies. The remedies provided in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude any aggrieved person from pursuing any other remedy provided by law.”

Section 3. Environmental Determination. The Council finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15061(b)3 in that the Council finds there is no possibility that the implementation of this ordinance may have significant effects on the environment.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid and/or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on the 31st day following its adoption.

IN COUNCIL DULY PASSED this16th day of July, 2013.

 

AYES: (6) Mayor Bartley, Council Members Combs, Olivares, Ours, Swinth, WysockyNOES: (0)ABSENT: (1) Vice Mayor Carlstrom

ABSTAIN: (0)

Sebastopol, CA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL Creating Chapter 10.10 to Title 10 of the Sebastopol Municipal Code to prohibit harassment of Vulnerable Users because of their status as pedestrians and/or persons riding bicycles. 

CHAPTER 10.10

VULNERABLE USER PROTECTION

 

10.10.040 PROHIBTED ACTIVITIES

 

A person shall not do or attempt to do any of the following:

A. Physically assault or attempt to physically assault a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

 

B. Threaten to physically injure a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

 

C. Intentionally injure, attempt to injure, or threaten to physically injure, either by words, vehicle, or other object, a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

 

D. Intentionally distract or attempt to distract a Vulnerable User because of, in whole or in part, a Vulnerable User’s status as a pedestrian and/or person riding a bicycle.

 

E. Intentionally force or attempt to force a Vulnerable User off a street for purposes unrelated to public safety.

 

F. Intentionally pass a Vulnerable User at an unsafe distance.

 

G. Intentionally fail to yield to a pedestrian walking or running along the roadway, crossing the roadway, or using a public sidewalk in order to intimidate or intentionally injure the pedestrian.

 

10.10.050 REMEDIES

A. Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this Article by means of a civil lawsuit.

 

B. Any person who violates the provisions of this Article shall be liable for treble the actual damages with regard to each and every such violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater, and shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. In addition, a jury or a court may award punitive damages where warranted.

 

C. Violations of any of the provisions of this Article shall not constitute a misdemeanor or infraction, except where such actions, independently of this Article, constitute a misdemeanor or infraction.

 

D. The remedies provided by the provisions of this Article are in addition to all other remedies provided by law, and nothing in this Article shall preclude any aggrieved person from pursuing any other remedy provided by law.

Explicit reference to vulnerable user. Perhaps first ordinance in the country on this. Call these folks.
Sunnyvale, CA 10.56.320. Prohibition against harassment of bicyclists. (a)       A person shall not do or attempt to do any of the following:(1)       Physically assault or attempt to physically assault a bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the bicyclist’s status as a bicyclist.

(2)       Threaten to physically injure a bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the bicyclist’s status as a bicyclist.

(3)       Intentionally injure, attempt to injure, or threaten to physically injure, either by words, vehicle, or other object, a bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the bicyclist’s status as a bicyclist.

(4)       Intentionally distract or attempt to distract a bicyclist because of, in whole or in part, the bicyclist’s status as a bicyclist.

(5)       Intentionally force or attempt to force a bicyclist off a street for purposes unrelated to public safety.

(b)       Remedies.

(1)       Any aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this section by means of a civil lawsuit.

(2)       Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be liable for treble the actual damages with regard to each and every such violation, or one thousand dollars, whichever is greater, and shall be liable for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation. In addition, a jury or court may award punitive damages where warranted.

(3)       Notwithstanding Section 1.04.010 of this code, violations of any of the provisions of this section shall not constitute a misdemeanor or infraction, except where such actions, independently of this section, constitute a misdemeanor or infraction.

(4)       The remedies provided by the provisions of this section are in addition to all other remedies provided by law, and nothing in this section shall preclude any aggrieved person form pursuing any other remedy provided by law. (Ord. 2972-12 § 2).

Windsor, CA Failed Ordinance   Windsor Town Council members on Wednesday night rejected a proposed ordinance that would make it easier for bicyclists and pedestrians to sue people who harass or intimidate them.While acknowledging the vulnerability of cyclists and people on foot, a majority of council members said it would not necessarily make them safer and could lead to frivolous lawsuits.

 

“This doesn’t solve the behavior,” Mayor Robin Goble said. “This just gives more opportunity for people to sue.”

 

She said education and common courtesy will do more to address the problem of unsafe behavior on the part of both motorists and cyclists.

 

Other than Councilwoman Debora Fudge — a seasoned cyclist who described an incident where a motorist deliberately cut her off and slammed on the brakes — there was no support on the council for the “Vulnerable Road User Protection” ordinance urged by the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition.

 

“It missed me by two inches. I could have been killed,” she told her colleagues.

 

But other council members had their doubts that it would be effective.

 

“There’s a lot of bad blood between bicyclists and motorists,” said Councilman Steve Allen, who commutes sometimes by bike and has participated in organized cycling rides. “I don’t see passing an ordinance as relieving animosity. I see it as potentially worse — people being more angry about it.”

 

The bicycle coalition is on a campaign to get all nine cities and the county to adopt an ordinance to make it easier for a cyclist or pedestrian to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages if they are harassed or assaulted. Advocates say it will mainly act as a deterrent.

 

Sebastopol and the County of Sonoma earlier this year adopted their versions of the new law.

 

Santa Rosa City Council members, who previously expressed support for a vulnerable user ordinance, will formally consider it next month, as will the Healdsburg City Council.

 

The push for an ordinance followed a series of vehicle crashes in the county over the past two years that have seriously injured or killed cyclists and pedestrians.

 

It’s patterned after similar ordinances that have been adopted in Los Angeles, Berkeley, Sunnyvale and Washington, D.C.

 

Supporters say the ordinance is intended to fill gaps in criminal prosecution, which has a higher standard of proof.

 

It defines what harassment is and sets up a procedure for an injured party, whether it is a cyclist, pedestrian, jogger or skateboard rider, to bring a lawsuit against an aggressor, which could be a motorist or even a cyclist.

 

Harassment is defined as attempted physical assault or physical assault; verbal threats of assault; intentional injury or attempts to injure; distracting or attempting to distract a bicyclist, pedestrian or others; forcing or attempting to force someone off the street; passing at an unsafe distance of less than 3 feet with intent to intimidate or injure; and failing to yield to a pedestrian walking or running along a road.”It would not apply to “someone behaving rudely, or giving a person a one finger salute,” said Gary Helfrich , executive director of the county Bicycle Coalition.

Colorado C.R.S. 18-9-116 (Criminal Code-Harassment)C.R.S. 42-4-1008.5 (2) (Vehicle and Traffic Code- Misdemeanor) 

C.R.S. 18-9-116

 

18-9-116. Throwing missiles at vehicles – harassment of bicyclists

 

(1) Any person who knowingly projects any missile at or against any vehicle or equipment designed for the transportation of persons or property, other than a bicycle, commits a class 1 petty offense.

 

(2) Any person who knowingly projects any missile at or against a bicyclist commits a class 2 misdemeanor.

 

(3) As used in this section, “missile” means any object or substance.

 

***

C.R.S. 42-4-1008.5 (2)

 

A driver who, in a careless and imprudent manner, drives his or her vehicle unnecessarily close to, toward, or near a bicyclist, commits careless driving,which is a class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense when the actions are the

proximate cause of bodily injury or death to another.

 

Not explicit vulnerable user act; harassment statute in criminal code and misdemeanor statute in traffic and vehicle code. 
Connecticut Sec. 14-212c.Sec. 14-212c. Fines doubled for failure to yield right-of-way to a bicyclist.  A surcharge shall be imposed equivalent to one hundred per cent of the fine established or imposed for a violation of subsection (e) of section 14-242, section 14-245, 14-246a, 14-247 or 14-247a for such violation when the driver of a vehicle fails to grant or yield the right-of-way to a person riding a bicycle, as defined in section 14-286.

 

No explicit vulnerable user law. Just doubling of fines under Motor vehicle Code (Section 14).
Connecticut PROPOSED PENDING LEGISLATION:   Senate Bill 191General Assembly 

Committee Bill No. 191

January Session, 2013

LCO No. 3762

*_____SB00191JUD___050713____*

Referred to Committee on TRANSPORTATION

 

Introduced by:

 

(TRA)

 

AN ACT CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR CAUSING HARM TO A VULNERABLE USER OF A PUBLIC WAY.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

 

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2013) (a) As used in subsection (b) of this section, (1) “vulnerable user” means: (A) A pedestrian; (B) a highway worker; (C) a person riding or driving an animal; (D) a person riding a bicycle; (E) a person using a skateboard, roller skates or inline skates; (F) a person operating or riding on an agricultural tractor; (G) a person using a wheelchair or motorized chair; and (H) a blind person and such person’s service animal, and (2) “public way” includes any state or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley, driveway, parkway or place, under the control of the state or any political subdivision of the state, dedicated, appropriated or opened to public travel or other use.

 

(b) Any person operating a motor vehicle on a public way who fails to exercise reasonable care and causes the serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable user of a public way, provided such vulnerable user has shown reasonable care in such user’s use of the public way, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars.

 

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:

Section 1

October 1, 2013

New section

 

Connecticut — Last activity on May 31, 2013Recent activity

May 31, 2013 — HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER 663

May 31, 2013 — FAV. RPT., TABLED FOR HOUSE CALENDER

May 30, 2013 — ON CONSENT CALENDAR

May 30, 2013 — SENATE PASSED

May 8, 2013 — FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.

May 8, 2013 — NO NEW FILE BY COMM. ON Judiciary

May 7, 2013 — RPTD. OUT OF LCO

May 7, 2013 — FILED WITH LCO

May 7, 2013 — Joint Favorable

May 1, 2013 — REF. BY SEN. TO COMM. ON Judiciary

Apr 24, 2013 — FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.

Apr 24, 2013 — NO NEW FILE BY COMM. ON Insurance and Real Estate

Apr 24, 2013 — RPTD. OUT OF LCO

Apr 24, 2013 — FILED WITH LCO

Apr 24, 2013 — Joint Favorable

Apr 18, 2013 — REF. BY SEN. TO COMM. ON Insurance and Real Estate

Apr 4, 2013 — FILE NO. 331

Apr 4, 2013 — SENATE CALENDAR NUMBER 265

Apr 4, 2013 — FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.

Apr 4, 2013 — RPTD. OUT OF LCO

Mar 28, 2013 — REFERRED TO Office of Legislative Research AND Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/03/13

Mar 19, 2013 — FILED WITH LCO

Mar 15, 2013 — Joint Favorable

Feb 28, 2013 — REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Transportation

Feb 27, 2013 — DRAFTED BY COMMITTEE

Feb 25, 2013 — Vote to Draft

Feb 8, 2013 — PUBLIC HEARING 0213

Feb 4, 2013 — Reserved for Subject Matter Public Hearing

Jan 17, 2013 — REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Transportation

 

Note that CT has AARP testifying in support of the legislation.

 

http://states.aarp.org/aarp-testifies-in-support-of-vulnerable-user-pedestrian-bicycle-safety-legislation/

Delaware 21 Del.C. § 4176Title 21. Motor Vehicles

Part III. Operation and Equipment

Chapter 41. Rules of the Road

Subchapter IX. Reckless Driving; Driving While Intoxicated

 

§ 4176. Careless or inattentive driving

 

(a) Whoever operates a vehicle in a careless or imprudent manner, or without due regard for road, weather and traffic conditions then existing, shall be guilty of careless driving.

 

(b) Whoever operates a vehicle and who fails to give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle, or whoever fails to maintain a proper lookout while operating the vehicle, shall be guilty of inattentive driving.

 

(c) Whoever violates this section shall for the first offense be fined not less than $25 nor more than $75. For each subsequent like offense occurring within 3 years of a former offense, the person shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $95.

 

(d)(1) In addition to any other penalty imposed for an offense committed under this section, if the finder of fact determines that the commission of that offense contributed to the serious physical injury of a vulnerable user lawfully in the public right-of-way, the court shall:

 

a. Impose a sentence that requires the person convicted of the offense to:

 

1. Complete a traffic safety course approved by the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles;

 

2. Perform up to 100 hours of community service, which must include activities related to driver improvement and providing public education on traffic safety;

 

b. Impose, but suspend on the condition that the person complete the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)a. of this section,

 

1. A fine of not more than $550, and

 

2. A suspension of driving privileges as provided in § 2733(a)(2) of this title; and

 

3. Set a hearing date up to 1 year from the date of sentencing. At that hearing, the court shall:

 

A. If the person has successfully completed the requirements described in paragraph (d)(1)a. of this section, dismiss the penalties imposed under paragraphs (d)(1)b.1. and 2. of this section.

 

B. If the person has not successfully completed the requirements described in paragraph (d)(1)a. of this section, either: I. Grant the person an extension based on good cause shown, or II. Impose the penalties under paragraphs (d)(1)b.1. and 2. of this section.

 

(2) The police officer issuing the citation for an offense under this section shall note on the citation if the cited offense contributed to the serious physical injury of a vulnerable user of the public right-of-way. If so noted, the person receiving the citation shall not be permitted to use the voluntary assessment process otherwise permitted under § 709 of this title.

 

(3) As used herein, “vulnerable user of a public right-of-way” means:

 

a. A pedestrian, including those persons actually engaged in work upon a highway, or in work upon utility facilities along a highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way; or

 

b. A person riding an animal; or

c. A person operating any of the following on a public right-of-way, crosswalk, or shoulder of the highway:

1. A farm tractor or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use;

2. A skateboard;

3. Roller skates;

4. In-line skates;

5. A scooter;

6. A moped;

7. A bicycle; or

8. A motorcycle.

 

Vulnerable User Law Found in Motor Vehicle CodeLegislative History:

 

56 Laws 1968, ch. 305; 60 Laws 1976, ch. 701, § 47; 65 Laws 1986, ch. 503, § 20; 68 Laws 1991, ch. 9, § 31; 70 Laws 1995, ch. 186, § 1, eff. July 10, 1995; 77 Laws 2010, ch. 464, § 1, eff. Aug. 12, 2010; 78 Laws 2012, ch. 208, §§ 8-10, eff. Jan. 30, 2012.

 

 

 

Delaware Pending Favorable Change:AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO RULES OF THE ROAD.

Synopsis: This bill would provide an exemption to traffic laws for participants in a foot race or walking event on a highway to run or walk with the flow of traffic during an approved event. Currently, there is the potential for a conflict with Delaware Code regarding routing for foot races and walking events. Typically, on roadways with shoulders, the shoulder is closed in one direction to support the foot race. This involves runners and walkers to run or walk with the flow of traffic, which is currently not allowable under Delaware Code. This is the same exemption that has been given to approved bicycle races.

 

Current Status: Out of Committee   On   06/12/13

District of Columbia D.C. Law 19-264.On January 18, 2013, the District of Columbia enacted the “Access to Justice for Bicyclists Act of 2012″ (Act 19-625) which provides bicyclists with additional rights to relief for civil assault and battery by motorists. The legislation states, in relevant part, that “[a]n individual who, while riding a bicycle, is the victim of an assault or battery by a motorist, and prevails in a civil action for such assault or battery, shall be entitled to: (1) Statutory damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater; (2) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; provided, that the total amount of damages is less than $10,000; and (3) Any other relief available under the law.”

 

 

http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/NoticeHome.aspx?noticeid=4174800PDF of law can be downloaded.

Attorneys’ fees/costs provision is atypical and limited to matters where damages are less than $10k

Florida 316.1923 Aggressive careless driving.—“Aggressive careless driving” means committing two or more of the following acts simultaneously or in succession:(1) Exceeding the posted speed as defined in s. 322.27(3)(d)5.b. 

(2) Unsafely or improperly changing lanes as defined in s. 316.085.

 

(3) Following another vehicle too closely as defined in s. 316.0895(1).

 

(4) Failing to yield the right-of-way as defined in s. 316.079, s. 316.0815, or s. 316.123.

 

(5) Improperly passing as defined in s. 316.083, s. 316.084, or s. 316.085.

 

(6) Violating traffic control and signal devices as defined in ss. 316.074 and 316.075.

Aggressive Careless driving is simply an offense under the Motor Vehicle Code. No explicit vulnerable user law or consequences.
Florida Vulnerable User Petition Being Circulated This YearFlorida is the most dangerous state in the U.S. for pedestrians.   Bicycling fatalities are higher in Florida than any other state. Pedestrians account for 27% of traffic fatalities in major U.S. cities. The four most dangerous large metropolitan areas in the U.S. for pedestrians are Orlando-Kissimmee, Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Jacksonville, and Miami. Four Florida cities are the most unsafe in our whole country.   Deaths and injuries to bicycle riders spiked upward in the U.S. from 2010 to 2011 according to the U.S. D.O.T.   Bicycle deaths have increased 9%, pedestrian deaths have increased 3%, while motor vehicle deaths decreased by 7,500.

 

The purpose of a Vulnerable Road User Law is to protect people who use the road (described in Section 1 below) that are not otherwise protected by being encased in the protective steel shell of a motor vehicle. Currently, unless there is proof of gross negligence or circumstances such as alcohol, drugs, there are inadequate provisions in state law to support bringing meaningful and significant charges against the motor vehicle driver who has caused such harm to a vulnerable user. It is our view that Florida law is far too lenient in punishing careless drivers who injure these vulnerable users, as these careless drivers most often receive merely a fine which they can handle by mail.   They are not even required to make a court appearance after a horrific collision. Too often, law enforcement believes that these pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable users should expect to be injured because they are being reckless in trying to share the road, and should retreat to the sidewalk where they belong. This needs to be changed. Non-motorists using a road or street have every right to expect that drivers will be alert and avoid them. For those drivers who aren’t willing or are unable to comply, there needs to be a provision in state law where their driving skills are called into question and penalties applied.

 

The below vulnerable user law provides for increased fines in cases where a vulnerable road user is injured or killed because of negligence or as the result of a traffic violation. These laws increase the cost of unsafe practices that impact pedestrians and bicyclists, and provide an incentive for safer driving practices, especially around cyclists and pedestrians. In this way the laws are much like increased fines in work zones, which promote construction worker safety. The below law recognizes that the type of negligence or traffic violations that may result in minor collisions between cars can have disproportionately severe results when a vulnerable road user is involved.   The law provide ways to address those divergent results.

 

Vulnerable Road User Law

 

Infliction of Serious Injury or Death to Vulnerable Road Users

 

Section 1. As used herein, the term “vulnerable road user” includes:

 

(a) a pedestrian, including those persons actually engaged in work upon a highway, or in work upon a highway, or in work upon utility facilities along a highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way; or

(b) a person riding an animal; or

(c) a person lawfully operating any of the following on a public right-of-way, crosswalk, or shoulder of the highway:

1. A bicycle;

2. A farm tractor or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use;

3. A skateboard;

4. Roller skates;

5. In-line skates;

6. A scooter;

7. A moped;

8. Motorcyclists;

9. Horse-drawn carriage drivers;

10. a person on an electric personal assistive mobility device; or

11. a person in a wheelchair.

 

Section 2. A person who operates a motor vehicle in a careless or distracted manner and causes serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable road user shall be guilty of infliction of serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable user.

 

Section 3. A person issued a citation under this section shall be required to attend a hearing before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

 

Section 4. A person found to have committed an offense under this statute shall be required to

 

(a) have his or her driving privileged suspended for a period of no less than 6 months; and one or more of the following:

(b) pay a monetary penalty of not more than two thousand dollars; or

(c) serve a period of incarceration which may not exceed thirty days; or

(d) participate in a motor vehicle accident prevention course; or

(e) perform community service for a number of hours to be determined by the court, which may not exceed two hundred hours.

 

By signing this petition you are simply asking Florida’s Governor and Legislature to pass a meaningful VRU law similar to the one above.   Thank you for taking the time to sign this petition and voice your concern.

This does not appear to have been developed into a bill, though I could be mistaken. Appears to have been developed by W. Davis: http://www.change.org/users/2628698More information may possibly be found from: http://www.billbonebikelaw.com/news-from-the-road/florida-cyclists-push-vulnerable-road-user-law/

 

Georgia O.C.G.A. § 40-6-77  

GEORGIA CODE

Copyright 2013 by The State of Georgia

All rights reserved.

 

 

*** Current Through the 2013 Regular Session ***

 

 

TITLE 40. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

CHAPTER 6. UNIFORM RULES OF THE ROAD

ARTICLE 4. RIGHT OF WAY

 

 

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-77 (2013)

 

§ 40-6-77. Penalties for causing serious injury due to right of way violation resulting in collision with motorcyclist, pedestrian, bicyclist, or farmer transporting vehicles hauling agricultural products, livestock, farm machinery, or farm products

 

 

(a) For purposes of this Code section, “serious injury” shall include, but shall not be limited to, causing bodily harm to another by depriving him or her of a member of his or her body, by rendering a member of his or her body useless, by seriously disfiguring his or her head or body or a member thereof, or by causing organic brain damage which renders the body or any member thereof useless.

 

(b) Any person who causes a serious injury to another person as a result of a collision with a motorcyclist, bicyclist, pedestrian, or farmer operating any vehicle used to transport agricultural products, livestock, farm machinery, or farm supplies by committing any right of way violation under this chapter when such motorcyclist, bicyclist, pedestrian, or farmer operating any vehicle used to transport agricultural products, livestock, farm machinery, or farm supplies is abiding by the provisions of this title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished:

 

(1) For a first offense, by a fine of not less than $250.00 in addition to any other penalties stipulated by law and the court shall report such conviction to the Department of Driver Services; and

 

(2) For a second or subsequent offense within a five-year period of time, as measured from the dates of previous arrests for which convictions were obtained or pleas of nolo contendere were accepted to the date of the current arrest for which a conviction is obtained or a plea of nolo contendere is accepted, by a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00 and imprisonment for not less than ten days nor more than 12 months. Any fine imposed under this paragraph shall be mandatory and shall not be suspended or waived or conditioned upon the completion of any course or sentence. The court imposing punishment under this subsection shall forward a record of the disposition of the case to the Department of Driver Services.

 

 

No explicit vulnerable user reference.Law found in the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Code—not criminal code.   However, the statute creates criminal penalties.

 

Requires “serious injury”

 

Law is for right of way violations and may not cover unsafe passing.

 

Like other laws, it requires that the bicyclist be “abiding by the provisions of this title” for law to apply—which could create enforcement problems if someone asserts violations of speed or other statutes.

 

HISTORY: Code 1981, § 40-6-77, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 504, § 2/HB 1392; Ga. L. 2009, p. 65, § 4/SB 196.

Hawaii HRS § 707-700 (Definitions)HRS § 707-702.5 (Negligent Homicide in the First Degree)HRS § 707-703 (Negligent Homicide in the Second Degree)

HRS § 707-705 (Negligent Injury in the First Degree)

West’s Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Annotated

Division 5. Crimes and Criminal Proceedings

Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code

Chapter 707. Offenses Against the Person

Part I. General Provisions Relating to Offenses Against the Person

§ 707-700. Definitions of terms in this chapter

 

“Vulnerable user” means:

(1) A pedestrian legally within a street or public highway;

(2) A roadway worker actually engaged in work upon a street or public highway or in work upon utility facilities along a street or public highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within a street or public highway, including but not limited to:

(A) Construction and maintenance workers; and

(B) Police, fire, and other emergency responders; or

(3) A person legally operating any of the following within the street or public highway:

(A) A bicycle;

(B) A moped;

(C) An electric personal assistive mobility device; or

(D) A wheelchair conveyance or other personal mobility device.

 

*****

West’s Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Annotated

Division 5. Crimes and Criminal Proceedings

Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code

Chapter 707. Offenses Against the Person

Part II. Criminal Homicide

§ 707-702.5. Negligent homicide in the first degree

(1) A person commits the offense of negligent homicide in the first degree if that person causes the death of:

(a) Another person by the operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner while under the influence of drugs or alcohol; or

(b) A vulnerable user by the operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner.

 

(2) Negligent homicide in the first degree is a class B felony.

 

***

 

West’s Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Annotated

Division 5. Crimes and Criminal Proceedings

Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code

Chapter 707. Offenses Against the Person

Part II. Criminal Homicide

§ 707-703. Negligent homicide in the second degree

 

(1) A person commits the offense of negligent homicide in the second degree if that person causes the death of:

(a) Another person by the operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner; or

(b) A vulnerable user by the operation of a vehicle in a manner that constitutes simple negligence as defined in section 707-704(2).

(2) Negligent homicide in the second degree is a class C felony.

 

*****

 

West’s Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Annotated

Division 5. Crimes and Criminal Proceedings

Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code

Chapter 707. Offenses Against the Person

Part II. Criminal Homicide

§ 707-705. Negligent injury in the first degree

(1) A person commits the offense of negligent injury in the first degree if that person causes:

(a) Serious bodily injury to another person by the operation of a vehicle in a negligent manner; or

(b) Substantial bodily injury to a vulnerable user by the operation of a [vehicle] in a negligent manner. (2) Negligent injury in the first degree is a class C felony.

 

 

 

Vulnerable user law is found in the criminal code.Legislative History: Act 316, Session Laws 2012, amended this section by adding definitions for “public highway”, “street”, and “vulnerable user”.

 

Legislative History Note From Committee Report:

 

Act 316, Session Laws 2012, amended this section to include a provision for incidents involving a vulnerable highway user. Hawaii’s roadways have often been called dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and others who legally use the public right of way without being in a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, when collisions occur between motor vehicles and these individuals, the outcome is often catastrophic. Amending the offense of negligent homicide in the first degree to include a provision for incidents in which vulnerable highway users are involved may, at the very least, increase driver awareness of these individuals. Conference Committee Report No. 33-12.

Idaho
Boise, Idaho Section 10-10-14 HARASSMENT OF BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITEDIt shall be a misdemeanor for any person, maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass or cause another person to crash, stumble, or fall because that other person is walking along theroadway or operating a bicycle along the roadway, to:

A. threaten, by word or act, to cause physical injury to the pedestrian or bicyclist, or

B. throw or otherwise expel any object at or in the direction of the pedestrian or bicyclist.

(6764, Added, 01/12/2010; 6655, Repealed, 04/15/2008, 3366, Added, 10/10/1972)

Anti-harassment city ordinance; not actual vulnerable user lawhttp://www.kboi2.com/news/local/81297197.html

 

http://cityclerk.cityofboise.org/media/222917/13623_1010.pdf

 

Illinois 625 ILCS 5/11-703 (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-703)Sec. 11-703. Overtaking a vehicle on the left. The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction, subject to those limitations, exceptions, and special rules otherwise stated in this Chapter: 

(a) The driver of a vehicle overtaking another

vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or the main traveled portion of the roadway.

 

 

(b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

(c) The driver of a 2 wheeled vehicle may not, in passing upon the left of any vehicle proceeding in the same direction, pass upon the right of any vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless there is an unobstructed lane of traffic available to permit such passing maneuver safely.

(d) The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle or individual proceeding in the same direction on a highway shall leave a safe distance, but not less than 3 feet, when passing the bicycle or individual and shall maintain that distance until safely past the overtaken bicycle or individual.

(e) A person driving a motor vehicle shall not, in a reckless manner, drive the motor vehicle unnecessarily close to, toward, or near a bicyclist, pedestrian, or a person riding a horse or driving an animal drawn vehicle.

 

(f) Every person convicted of paragraph (e) of this Section shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the violation does not result in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement to another. If the violation results in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement to another, the person shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.

(Source: P.A. 95-231, eff. 1-1-08; 96-1007, eff. 1-1-11.)

Not an explicit vulnerable user law.Misdemeanor when driver gets too close, even if no injury to bicyclist.   Then, if injury results, it turns into a felony.

 

Found in motor vehicle code.

 

 

Indiana Recent Public Statement by Bicycle IndianaVulnerable Roadway law and the 3 foot law.

 

In recent weeks, Indiana has experienced an unsettling spike in the reports of bicyclists and pedestrians struck by automobiles. Last week’s crash involving a team of cyclists in Bloomington was only the latest in a string of incidents resulting in everything from minor injuries to fatalities.

 

By pointing this out, I don’t mean to suggest that anything sinister is at work, or even that we are experiencing a trend. But the headlines do point to one clear and simple truth: We all must be vigilant when two-ton motor vehicles share the road with runners, cyclists, workers and others.

 

That’s why Bicycle Indiana and other cycling groups and enthusiasts across Indiana are encouraging our state’s lawmakers to enact a “Vulnerable Road Users” law in the coming legislative session.

 

A “Vulnerable Road Users” law outlines penalties for careless, negligent or distracted driving that results in injury or death to a “vulnerable road user,” a category that would include not only bicyclists, but also pedestrians, motorcyclists, construction workers and others who share the roadway with cars and trucks. Oregon and Delaware have passed such laws, and other states are developing the legislation as well.

 

When coupled with laws that define the rights and responsibilities of the vulnerable road users – for example, laws that describe the measures cyclists must take to ensure their own safety – a vulnerable road users law could help protect everyone on the road.

 

However, as important as this law can be, we know it will do little to save lives unless it is complemented by a real desire to share the road safely. We must all – cyclists, drivers, pedestrians and anyone else on the roadway – remain vigilant and alert at all times.

 

As cyclists, we at Bicycle Indiana expect our peers to ride safely, to obey the laws of the road and anticipate dangerous conditions. As drivers, we expect our peers to remain focused when driving. Tragedy is only a quick distraction away.

 

No law can anticipate every situation, and no amount of vigilance can prevent every tragedy. We understand that not all accidents are the result of carelessness or negligence. But also know that, if we all strive to truly share the road and do all we can to put an end to distracted and reckless driving, then we can avoid seeing as many tragic headlines as we’ve seen in recent weeks.

 

 

Nancy Tibbett

Executive Director

Bicycle Indiana

201 S. Capitol Ave, Ste 800

Indianapolis, IN 46225

 

 

No law or proposed legislation appears to have been developed yet. HOWEVER, the Executive Director of Bicycle Indiana recently made a public statement suggesting that efforts are underway.
Iowa 321.281 Actions against bicyclists.321.302 Overtaking and passing. 

 

321.281 Actions against bicyclists.

1. A person operating a motor vehicle shall not steer the motor vehicle unreasonably close to or toward a person riding a bicycle on a highway, including the roadway or the shoulder adjacent to the roadway.

2. A person shall not knowingly project any object or substance at or against a person riding a bicycle on a highway.

3. A person who violates this section commits a simple misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation under section 805.8A, subsection 14, paragraph “k”.

 

***

321.302 Overtaking and passing.

1. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the driver of a vehicle on a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of traffic moving in the same direction as the vehicle being passed may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn when such movement can be made in safety.

 

2. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the driver of a vehicle may overtake and, allowing sufficient clearance, pass another vehicle proceeding in the same direction either upon the left or upon the right on a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for four or more lines of moving traffic when such movement can be made in safety.

 

3. The driver of a vehicle shall not drive off the pavement or upon the shoulder of the roadway or upon the apron or roadway of an intersecting roadway in overtaking or passing on the right or the left.

 

4. A person convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a simple misdemeanor punishable as a scheduled violation under section 805.8A, subsection 6, paragraph “d”.

 

Not explicit vulnerable user law, but misdemeanors for driving and/or overtaking too closely. 

Also note that it appears as if Iowa tried to pass, but was unsuccessful at passing, a vulnerable user law in 2010. Senate Bill 117. I think it passed in the senate but stalled in the house.

Kansas
Kentucky FAILED LEGISLATIONHB 88/LM (BR 51) – J. Wayne, T. Burch, M. Marzian, R. Meeks, T. Riner, C. Siler, K. Sinnette, D. Watkins 

AN ACT relating to bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Amend KRS 189.010 to define bicycle and to explicitly exclude bicycle in the definition of motor vehicle; create a new section of KRS Chapter 189 to establish the offense of vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian; amend KRS 189.300 to detail right side travel requirements for bicycles; amend KRS 189.990 to establish penalties for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian; amend KRS 431.005 to provide that an officer can arrest without a warrant when the officer is not present to witness vehicular assault of a pedestrian or bicyclist; amend KRS 431.015 to allow a physical arrest under the conditions described in the amendment to KRS 431.005.

 

 

(Prefiled by the sponsor(s).)

 

Jan 6-introduced in House

Jan 7-to Judiciary (H)

 

Legislature Home Page

Efforts in 2010 to pass a vulnerable user law failed. See http://www.examiner.com/article/when-will-kentucky-protect-the-most-vulnerable-road-users.
Louisiana Louisiana RS 32:201§201. Harassment of bicyclists prohibited; penalties

 

A. It shall be unlawful to harass, taunt, or maliciously throw objects at or in the   direction of any person riding a bicycle.

 

B. Any person who violates this Section shall be fined not less than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

 

Acts 2009, No. 147, §1.

Anti-harassment statute; not explicit vulnerable user statute
Maine
Maryland MD Code, Transportation, § 21-1209§ 21-1209. Actions prohibited relating to bicyclists 

 

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-1209

West’s Annotated Code of Maryland

Transportation

Title 21. Vehicle Laws–Rules of the Road

Subtitle 12. Operation of Bicycles and Play Vehicles

§ 21-1209. Actions prohibited relating to bicyclists

 

Drivers to exercise due care

 

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall :

 

(1) Exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter being ridden by a person; and

 

(2) When overtaking a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter, pass safely at a distance of not less than 3 feet, unless, at the time:

 

 

(i) The bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider fails to operate the vehicle in conformance with § 21-1205(a) of this subtitle (“Riding to right side of roadway”) or § 21-1205.1(b) of this subtitle (“Roadway with bike lane or shoulder paved to smooth surface”);

 

 

(ii) A passing clearance of less than 3 feet is caused solely by the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter rider failing to maintain a steady course; or

 

 

(iii) The highway on which the vehicle is being driven is not wide enough to lawfully pass the bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter at a distance of at least 3 feet.

 

 

 

Throwing objects at or in direction of person riding bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter

 

(b) A person may not throw any object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter.

 

 

Opening door with intent to strike or injure person riding bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter

 

(c) A person may not open the door of any motor vehicle with intent to strike, injure, or interfere with any person riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter.

 

Driver of vehicle to yield right of way

 

(d) Unless otherwise specified in this title, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a person who is lawfully riding a bicycle, an EPAMD, or a motor scooter in a designated bike lane or shoulder if the driver of the vehicle is about to enter or cross the designated bike lane or shoulder.

 

CREDIT(S)

 

Added by Acts 1977, c. 14, § 2, eff. July 1, 1977. Amended by Acts 1986, c. 472, § 1; Acts 1995, c. 495, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1995; Acts 2001, c. 557, § 1, eff. July 1, 2001; Acts 2002, c. 546, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002; Acts 2010, c. 517, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2010.

 

Formerly Art. 66 1/2 , § 11-1206.1.

 

 

Not vulnerable user legislation.Anti-harassment provisions without any apparent penalties. 

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

 

2001 Legislation

 

Acts 2001, c. 557, § 1, inserted references to motor scooters throughout this section.

 

2002 Legislation

 

Acts 2002, c. 546, § 1, inserted references to electric personal assistive mobility devices (EPAMDs).

 

2010 Legislation

 

Acts 2010, c. 517, § 1, rewrote subsec. (a), and added subsec. (d). Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) had read:

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle, EPAMD, or motor scooter being ridden by a person.”

 

 

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-1209, MD TRANS § 21-1209

The statutes and Constitution are current through all chapters of the

2013 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

 

Massachusetts PENDING LEGISLATIONThe Act To Protect Vulnerable Road Users (S 1639)The Act To Protect Bicyclists in Bicycle Lanes (S 1640)

 

 

The Act To Protect Vulnerable Road Users (S 1639)

 

An Act to protect vulnerable road users.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

 

SECTION 1: Section 1 of Chapter 90 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting the following sentence:

“Vulnerable user” means a pedestrian or a person operating a bicycle, handcycle, tricycle, skateboard, roller skates, in-line skates, wheelchair, non-motorized scooter, or any non-motorized vehicle, or a person riding a horse.

 

SECTION 2: Chapter 90 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting the following as Section 24Y:

Persons convicted of violation of Sections 14C, 24, 24G, or 24L of Chapter 90 of the General Laws, where the victim is a vulnerable user as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 90, shall, in addition to the penalties set forth in those sections: (a) be subject to fines up to double the statutory amounts; (b) be required to complete a traffic safety class including interactions between motorized vehicles and vulnerable users; and (c) be required to perform up to 100 hours of community service related to driver improvement and providing public education on traffic safety including interactions between motorized vehicles and vulnerable users.

 

SECTION 3: Chapter 90 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting the following as Section 14C:

 

(1) It is unlawful for a person in a motor vehicle to intentionally pass a vulnerable user, as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 90, at an unsafe distance or at an unreasonable or improper speed, follow a vulnerable user at an unsafe distance, slow or stop in front of a vulnerable user for the purpose of interfering with the vulnerable user’s movement, or engage in any other behavior intended to interfere with or frighten a vulnerable user. A person convicted of violation of this section shall be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

 

(2) Irrespective of any criminal prosecution or the result of a criminal prosecution, a vulnerable user who is intentionally physically assaulted or otherwise intentionally injured;

threatened with physical assault or injury, whether by words, a vehicle, body part of another, or other object; or intentionally distracted, or the attempt thereof, by a person in a motor vehicle

shall have a civil cause of action in a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief, which

shall include: (a) an injunction; (b) actual damages with regard to each such violation, or up to three times the amount of the actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater; (c) punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by a jury or a court sitting without a jury; and (d)

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

 

(3) The relief provided for in subsection (2) of this section shall be in addition to all other

remedies provided by law. Nothing in this section shall preclude an aggrieved person from pursuing any other remedy provided by law.

 

***

 

SECTION 1: Chapter 89 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition,

is hereby amended by inserting the following as Section 4D:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall not stand or park the vehicle upon any on-street path

or lane designated by official signs or markings for the use of bicycles, or place the vehicle in such a manner as to interfere with the safety and passage of persons operating bicycles thereon.

The driver of a motor vehicle shall not stand or park the vehicle upon any lane designated

by pavement markings for the shared use of motor vehicles and bicycles, or place the vehicle in

such a manner as to interfere with the safety and passage of persons operating bicycles thereon.

SECTION 2: Section 5 of Chapter 89 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by replacing both references to “sections one to four C” with

“sections one to four D”, and by inserting the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph:

In addition to the aforementioned fine, any vehicle parked in violation section 4D shall be

subject to immediate towing.

 

Currently, MassBike is working on passing two different bills to increase bike safety. Filed in January 2013, the bills garnered significant legislative co-sponsors and will be heard in committee on Wednesday, June 26, 2013. The bills are: The Act To Protect Vulnerable Road Users (S 1639) defines “vulnerable users” to include bicyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, and other non-motorized road users, encourages motorists to exercise more caution when operation around vulnerable road users, educate motorists to operate more safely, and will provide law enforcement with additional tools to protect vulnerable road users. This piece of legislation addresses the problem of motorist harassment of vulnerable users by creating both criminal and civil liability for motorists who use their vehicle to physically harass a vulnerable user, and civil liability for motorists who engage in other forms of harassment of vulnerable users. (Click here for the full text of the bill). The Act To Protect Bicyclists in Bicycle Lanes (S 1640) prohibits motor vehicle operators from parking in on-street paths or lanes designated by official signs or markings for the use of bicycles, or placing the vehicle in such a manner as to interfere with the safety and passage of bicyclists. Motorists frequently endanger bicyclists by parking in bicycle lanes, forcing bicyclists to merge into traffic. There is currently no applicable state law, and communities are passing local ordinances that will result in inconsistent rules and enforcement unless statewide action is taken. (Click here for the full text of the bill). – See more at: http://massbike.org/projectsnew/legislation/#sthash.7nTI6UbY.dpufTowing provision for those in bicycle lane is a nice remedy.

 

 

NOTE THAT THERE COULD BE CRITICAL UNINTENDED NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE VULNERABLE USERS PROPOSED LEGISLATION REGARDING INTENT AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES IF THE ONLY MONEY AVAILABLE TO AN INJURY PARTY IS INSURANCE.

 

Actions for Bill S.1639
Date Branch Action
1/22/2013 Senate Referred to the committee on Transportation
1/22/2013 House House concurred
6/5/2013 Joint Hearing scheduled for 06/26/2013 from 10:00 AM-01:00 PM in B-1

 

Actions for Bill S.1640
Date Branch Action
1/22/2013 Senate Referred to the committee on Transportation
1/22/2013 House House concurred
6/5/2013 Joint Hearing scheduled for 06/26/2013 from 10:00 AM-01:00 PM in B-1
Michigan PROPOSED PENDING HOUSE BILL 4792 & PROPOSED PENDING HOUSE BILL 5080VULNERABLE ROADWAY USERHouse Bill 4792

Sponsor: Rep. David Nathan

House Bill 5080

Sponsor: Rep. Edward McBroom

Committee: Criminal Justice

Complete to 10-16-13

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 4792 AS INTRODUCED 5-30-13 AND 5080 AS

INTRODUCED 10-16-13

Together, the bills would expand the statutory provision that provides enhanced penalties

for a moving violation that causes injury to a person operating farm equipment on a

highway to include an injury to a vulnerable roadway user.

House Bill 5080 would amend the Michigan Vehicle Code (MCL 257.601c). Currently,

a person who commits a moving violation that has criminal penalties and as a result

causes injury to a person operating an implement of husbandry (i.e., a tractor) on a

highway in compliance with the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by

imprisonment for not more than one year and/or a fine of not more than $1,000. Causing

the person’s death is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more 15 years and/or a

fine of not more than $7,500.

The bill would apply these penalties also to a moving violation having criminal penalties

that injured or killed a vulnerable roadway user on a highway who was in compliance

with the Vehicle Code. (The code prescribes lawful and unlawful conduct by

pedestrians, wheelchair users, and cyclists; for example, cyclists riding in the roadway

are required to follow the same laws as motorists.)

“Vulnerable roadway user” would mean a pedestrian, a wheelchair user, or a person

operating a transportation device in compliance with the Michigan Vehicle Code.

“Transportation device” would be a device in, upon, or by which any person and/or

property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway by human power, or an

electrical propulsion system with average power of 750 watts or 1 horsepower and a

maximum speed on a paved level surface of not more than 20 miles per hour, and that is

regulated under the Vehicle Code. It includes, but is not limited to, a cycle with one or

more wheels, such as a bicycle or electric bicycle, and an electric wheelchair.

House Bill 4792 would amend the Code of Criminal Procedure (MCL 777.12e) to specify

that reckless driving causing death to a vulnerable roadway user would be a Class C

felony against a person with a 15-year maximum sentence

Analysis available at http://www.legislature.mi.gov HB 4792 and 5080 Page 2 of 2

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bills would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on state and local governments. To

the extent that the bills result in a greater number of convictions, they could increase

costs on state and local correctional systems. Information is not available on the number

of persons that might be convicted under these provisions. Felony convictions could

result in increased costs related to state prisons, county jails, and/or state probation

supervision. Misdemeanor convictions could increase costs related to county jails and/or

local misdemeanor probation supervision. The average cost of prison incarceration in a

state facility is roughly $35,500 per prisoner per year, a figure that includes various fixed

administrative and operational costs. The costs of local incarceration in a county jail and

local misdemeanor probation supervision vary by jurisdiction. State costs for parole and

felony probation supervision average about $3,000 per supervised offender per year. Any

increase in penal fine revenues would increase funding for local libraries, which are the

constitutionally-designated recipients of those revenues.

Legislative

ActionMichigan bicyclists request that the Governor and Michigan Legislature: 

Adopt standards that create enhanced penalties, including community service and driver-improvement education, substantial fines and jail time, in addition to a mandatory one-year license suspension for drivers who injure or kill vulnerable roadway users.

 

Status

HB 4792 and HB 5080 passed out of the Criminal Justice Committee with recommendation on 10/16/2013.

 

Issue

Modeled after accepted European standards and containing penalties similar to those used in numerous states and communities across the country, this legislation creates enhanced penalties for drivers who injure or kill a vulnerable roadway user, defined as a bicyclist, pedestrian or wheelchair user. The enhanced penalties include community service, driver-improvement education, fines, and jail time, as well as a mandatory one-year license suspension. These would only apply if a driver committed a moving violation resulting in the injury or death of a non-motorized user who was following Michigan traffic laws.

 

In Michigan, similar enhanced penalties already exist for reckless drivers who injure or kill construction workers, children in designated school zones, or operators of slow-moving farm vehicles.

 

Currently, crashes involving bicyclists legally using public roads often result in minor consequences for careless drivers that injure non-motorized users. Unless a victim can prove that the driver was grossly negligent, he or she usually has limited legal recourse. In fact, blame often gets shifted to victims with statements like “this wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t in the road.”

 

Killing a cyclist rarely even merits court appearances. In practice, Michigan law places little burden on drivers to be alert for other roadway users. Non-motorists have every right to expect that drivers will safely maneuver around them. Drivers who injure or kill bicyclists and pedestrians deserve to have their driving skills called into question and face stiffer penalties under state law.

 

A vulnerable roadway user provision would provide law enforcement and prosecutors with an enhanced set of penalties that fill the gap between basic traffic infractions and more serious crimes.

 

Michigan currently leads the nation with over 80 locally adopted Complete Streets ordinances and resolutions. As communities implement Complete Streets, more and more individuals will choose active transportation, like walking and biking. Improved infrastructure alone, however, does not guarantee safety, as demonstrated by a marked increase in bicycle and pedestrian fatalities. To remain viable, “Share the Road” principles must have a legal backbone, the foundation of which is stiffer penalties for drivers who fail to safely coexist with other legal roadway users.

 

Recognizing that penalizing drivers after the fact does not alone protect users, we also support parallel efforts to enhance Michigan’s driver’s education curriculum, helping to prevent these tragedies from happening in the first place.

 

This new campaign can be found at: www.shareMIroads.org

 

Minnesota Here is a video from 2013 talking about their proposed legislation:http://vimeo.com/channels/105190/64739794

 

 

 

Vulnerable User and Share the Road License Plates Did Not Pass – The Vulnerable User bill that would have increased the penalties from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor for causing a fatality while committing a careless or reckless driving offense did not pass. It was supported by the County Attorney’s Association, Minnesotan’s for Safe Driving and BikeMN. However, in the end, the coalition did not convince the chairs of the judiciary committees, Senator Latz and Representative Paymar, to support and hear the bill. There is still some issues with the levels of negligence related to this bill that the group will need to sort out with the committee chairs prior to next session. Contact Dorian Grilley if you want to be involved. dorian@bikemn.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or 651-387-2445.
Mississippi MS Code § 63-3-1313 (2013) It is unlawful to harass, taunt or maliciously throw an object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle.

 

A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be fined One Hundred Dollars ($ 100.00) for the first offense, Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00) for the second offense, and a fine of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($ 2,500.00) and imprisonment in the county jail for seven (7) days for the third and subsequent offenses.

Anti-harassment legislation.
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada NRS 205.2741  Throwing substance at or willfully damaging bicycle or motor vehicle; penalty.NRS 484B.363: School zone or school crossing zone: Speed limit; designation; signs; determination of hours in which speed limit is in effect; additional penalty if driver is proximate cause of collision with pedestrian or person riding bicycle.

 

NRS 484B.653  Reckless driving and organization of unauthorized speed contests prohibited; penalties; court to suspend driver’s license of certain offenders; additional penalties for violation committed in work zone or if driver is proximate cause of collision with pedestrian or person riding bicycle.

 

______

NRS 205.2741  Throwing substance at or willfully damaging bicycle or motor vehicle; penalty.

 

1.  It is unlawful for any person:

 

(a) To throw any stone, rock, missile or any substance at any bicycle, or at any motorbus, truck or other motor vehicle; or

 

(b) Wrongfully to injure, deface or damage any bicycle, or any motorbus, truck or other motor vehicle, or any part thereof.

 

2.  Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a public offense, as prescribed in NRS 193.155, proportionate to the value of the property damaged and in no event less than a misdemeanor.

 

(Added to NRS by 1971, 722; A 1979, 157; 1991, 2232)

*****************************

 

 

NRS 484B.363  School zone or school crossing zone: Speed limit; designation; signs; determination of hours in which speed limit is in effect; additional penalty if driver is proximate cause of collision with pedestrian or person riding bicycle.

 

1.  A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of 15 miles per hour in an area designated as a school zone except:

 

(a) On a day on which school is not in session;

 

(b) During the period from a half hour after school is no longer in operation to a half hour before school is next in operation;

 

(c) If the zone is designated by an operational speed limit beacon, during the hours when the pupils of the school are in class and the yellow lights of the speed limit beacon are not flashing in the manner which indicates that the speed limit is in effect; or

 

(d) If the zone is not designated by an operational speed limit beacon, during the times when the sign designating the school zone indicates that the speed limit is not in effect.

 

2.  A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour in an area designated as a school crossing zone except:

 

(a) On a day on which school is not in session;

 

(b) During the period from a half hour after school is no longer in operation to a half hour before school is next in operation;

 

(c) If the zone is designated by an operational speed limit beacon, during the hours when the pupils of the school are in class and the yellow lights of the speed limit beacon are not flashing in the manner which indicates that the speed limit is in effect; or

 

(d) If the zone is not designated by an operational speed limit beacon, during the times when the sign designating the school zone indicates that the speed limit is not in effect.

 

3.  The governing body of a local government or the Department of Transportation shall designate school zones and school crossing zones. An area must not be designated as a school zone if imposing a speed limit of 15 miles per hour would be unsafe because of higher speed limits in adjoining areas.

 

4.  Each such governing body and the Department shall provide signs to mark the beginning and end of each school zone and school crossing zone which it respectively designates. Each sign marking the beginning of such a zone must include a designation of the hours when the speed limit is in effect or that the speed limit is in effect when children are present.

 

5.  With respect to each school zone and school crossing zone in a school district, the superintendent of the school district or his or her designee, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and the governing body of the local government that designated the school zone or school crossing zone and after consulting with the principal of the school and the agency that is responsible for enforcing the speed limit in the zone, shall determine the times when the speed limit is in effect.

 

6.  If, while violating subsection 1 or 2, the driver of a motor vehicle is the proximate cause of a collision with a pedestrian or a person riding a bicycle, the driver is subject to the additional penalty set forth in subsection 4 of NRS 484B.653.

 

7.  As used in this section, “speed limit beacon” means a device which is used in conjunction with a sign and equipped with two or more yellow lights that flash alternately to indicate when the speed limit in a school zone or school crossing zone is in effect.

 

(Added to NRS by 1985, 640; A 1993, 2586; 1999, 2674; 2011, 1635)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.366)

 

—————————————————

 

NRS 484B.653  Reckless driving and organization of unauthorized speed contests prohibited; penalties; court to suspend driver’s license of certain offenders; additional penalties for violation committed in work zone or if driver is proximate cause of collision with pedestrian or person riding bicycle.

 

1.  It is unlawful for a person to:

 

(a) Drive a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property.

 

(b) Drive a vehicle in an unauthorized speed contest on a public highway.

 

(c) Organize an unauthorized speed contest on a public highway.

 

Ê A violation of paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection or subsection 1 of NRS 484B.550 constitutes reckless driving.

 

2.  If, while violating the provisions of subsections 1 to 5, inclusive, of NRS 484B.270, NRS 484B.280, paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 484B.283, NRS 484B.350, subsection 1 or 2 of NRS 484B.363 or subsection 1 of NRS 484B.600, the driver of a motor vehicle is the proximate cause of a collision with a pedestrian or a person riding a bicycle, the violation constitutes reckless driving.

 

3.  A person who violates paragraph (a) of subsection 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor and:

 

(a) For the first offense, shall be punished:

 

(1) By a fine of not less than $250 but not more than $1,000; or

 

(2) By both fine and imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months.

 

(b) For the second offense, shall be punished:

 

(1) By a fine of not less than $1,000 but not more than $1,500; or

 

(2) By both fine and imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months.

 

(c) For the third and each subsequent offense, shall be punished:

 

(1) By a fine of not less than $1,500 but not more than $2,000; or

 

(2) By both fine and imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months.

 

4.  A person who violates paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection 1 or commits a violation which constitutes reckless driving pursuant to subsection 2 is guilty of a misdemeanor and:

 

(a) For the first offense:

 

(1) Shall be punished by a fine of not less than $250 but not more than $1,000;

 

(2) Shall perform not less than 50 hours, but not more than 99 hours, of community service; and

 

(3) May be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months.

 

(b) For the second offense:

 

(1) Shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 but not more than $1,500;

 

(2) Shall perform not less than 100 hours, but not more than 199 hours, of community service; and

 

(3) May be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months.

 

(c) For the third and each subsequent offense:

 

(1) Shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,500 but not more than $2,000;

 

(2) Shall perform 200 hours of community service; and

 

(3) May be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months.

 

5.  In addition to any fine, community service and imprisonment imposed upon a person pursuant to subsection 4, the court:

 

(a) Shall issue an order suspending the driver’s license of the person for a period of not less than 6 months but not more than 2 years and requiring the person to surrender all driver’s licenses then held by the person;

 

(b) Within 5 days after issuing an order pursuant to paragraph (a), shall forward to the Department any licenses, together with a copy of the order;

 

(c) For the first offense, may issue an order impounding, for a period of 15 days, any vehicle that is registered to the person who violates paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection 1 if the vehicle is used in the commission of the offense; and

 

(d) For the second and each subsequent offense, shall issue an order impounding, for a period of 30 days, any vehicle that is registered to the person who violates paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection 1 if the vehicle is used in the commission of the offense.

 

6.  Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to subsection 4 of NRS 484B.550, a person who does any act or neglects any duty imposed by law while driving or in actual physical control of any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property, if the act or neglect of duty proximately causes the death of or substantial bodily harm to another person, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years and by a fine of not less than $2,000 but not more than $5,000.

 

7.  A person who violates any provision of this section may be subject to the additional penalty set forth in NRS 484B.130 unless the person is subject to the penalty provided pursuant to subsection 4 of NRS 484B.550.

 

8.  As used in this section, “organize” means to plan, schedule or promote, or assist in the planning, scheduling or promotion of, an unauthorized speed contest on a public highway, regardless of whether a fee is charged for attending the unauthorized speed contest.

 

(Added to NRS by 1969, 1486; A 1981, 866; 1983, 1015; 1993, 524; 1995, 1298; 2003, 487, 3244; 2007, 2039; 2011, 1637)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 484.377)

 

 

Not explicitly a vulnerable user act, but offers great protection.Vulnerable user law comes into play when bicycle or pedestrian is in school zone. Proximate cause requirement.

 

Interestingly, 205.2741 is found in the “Crimes Against Property” portion of the Criminal Code.

New Hampshire Check Back It appears as if NH is gearing up to send a bill through.   See:October 2013 update:

 

BWA-NH pushing for Vulnerable User legislation

 

While BWA-NH started work on Vulnerable User legislation for NH last year, the September 21 crash on the Granite State Wheelmen’s 40th annual Seacoast Century Weekend ride highlighted just how vulnerable bicyclists are compared to an out-of-control motorist. Four experienced cyclists riding single file on the far right of the northbound lane on Route 1-A in Hampton NH were hit by a southbound motorist who obviously crossed the center line and reportedly was speeding, texting while driving, on drugs, and never had a driver’s license.

 

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, families, and friends of all concerned. Killed were Ms. Elise Bouchard, 52, of Danvers, Mass. and Ms. Pamela Wells, 60, of South Hamilton, Mass. Severely injured were Mr. Uwe Uhmeyer of Essex, MA and Ms. Margo Heigh of Danvers, MA. The 19-year-old driver, Ms. Darriean Hess of Seabrook, NH, suffered very minor injuries and was released on $50K bond pending appearance in court. Does this sound fair? See the October 2013 Updates page for more details.

 

All too often we hear about crashes caused by motorists resulting in serious injuries or fatalities to vulnerable users of our shared roadways with the penalties often being nothing more than “a slap on the wrist” – sometimes nothing based on national reports. Bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians, utility workers, tow truck operators, first responders, state and local police, NH-DOT highway maintenance personnel, and others have a legal and valid reason to be on our public roads. The rights of these vulnerable users should be made aware to all motorists and for them to realize that their vehicle can cause serious harm for which they are likely responsible. A Vulnerable User law effectively provides the police and courts with an additional tool to better enforce existing laws so that the penalties more nearly fit the offense.

 

The bill as sponsored by Representatives Lenette Petersen and John Cebrowski establishes penalties for the infliction of serious injury or death to vulnerable users of New Hampshire roads and highways. The bill addresses a need because existing laws in New Hampshire fail to deliver the results that vulnerable users require for their safety. The individual laws pertaining to each type of vulnerable user are little known or are too ambiguous for the average motorist to be aware of and the penalties for breaking these laws do not appear to be a sufficient deterrent.

 

Stay tuned as this legislation moves ahead during the next few months. BWA-NH Exec Director Tim Blagden, the entire Board, and the NH bike-ped community in general are very supportive of this legislation.

 

Information from Bike-Walk Alliance of NH: http://www.bwanh.org/

New Jersey
New Mexico New Mexico had a vulnerable user bill moving through its state legislature, and HB 68 even passed unanimously in the House (68-0). Unfortunately the bill died in a Senate committee.
New York VAT Code, Title 7 (Rules of the Road) Article 26 (Right of Way), § 1146 (Drivers to Exercise Due Care) (“Hayley and Diego’s Law”) VAT Code, Title 5, Article 20, § 510 (Suspension, Revocation and Reissuance of Licenses and Registrations) (“Elle’s Law”)

 

——————-

VAT Code, Title 7 (Rules of the Road) Article 26 (Right of Way), § 1146 (Drivers to Exercise Due Care).

 

Drivers   to     exercise due care.   (a) Notwithstanding the

provisions of any other law to the contrary, every driver of a vehicle

shall     exercise due care   to avoid colliding   with any bicyclist,

pedestrian, or domestic animal upon any roadway and shall give warning

by   sounding the horn when necessary. For the purposes of this section,

the term “domestic animal” shall mean domesticated sheep, cattle,   and

goats which are under the supervision and control of a pedestrian.

(b)   1. A driver   of a motor vehicle who causes physical injury as

defined in article ten of the penal law to a   pedestrian or bicyclist

while   failing to exercise due care in violation of subdivision (a) of

this section, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a

fine   of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not

more than fifteen days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

2. If such driver of a motor vehicle   causes physical injury   while

failing   to exercise due   care in violation of subdivision (a) of this

section, then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that, as a result

of   such failure to   exercise due care, such person operated the motor

vehicle in a manner that caused such physical injury.

(c) 1. A driver of a motor vehicle who causes serious physical injury

as   defined in article ten of the penal law to a pedestrian or bicyclist

while failing to exercise due care in violation of subdivision (a)   of

this   section, shall be guilty of a traffic infraction punishable by a

fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars or by imprisonment for

not more than fifteen days or by   required participation in   a motor

vehicle   accident prevention course   pursuant to paragraph   (e-1) of

subdivision two of section 65.10 of the penal law or by any combination

of   such fine, imprisonment or course, and by suspension of a license or

registration pursuant to subparagraph (xiv) or (xv) of paragraph b of

subdivision two of section five hundred ten of this chapter.

2.   If such driver of a motor vehicle causes serious physical injury

while failing to exercise due care in violation of subdivision (a)   of

this   section, then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that, as a

result of such failure to exercise due care, such person operated   the

motor vehicle in a manner that caused such serious physical injury.

(d) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of this section committed by

a   person who has   previously been convicted of any violation of such

subdivisions within the preceding five years, shall constitute a class B

misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars

in addition to any other penalties provided by law.

(e)   Nothing contained in   this section shall prevent the court from

imposing   any other authorized   disposition, including a   period of

community service.

 

——————————-

 

VAT Code, Title 5, Article 20, § 510 (“Elle’s Law”)

 

§ 510. Suspension,     revocation   and   reissuance   of   licenses and

registrations.

 

1. Who may suspend or revoke.

 

***

2. Mandatory revocations and suspensions.
a. Mandatory   revocations.

 

****

 

b. Mandatory suspensions. Such licenses shall be suspended, and   such

registrations may also be suspended:

 

***

 

(xiv) for a period of forty-five days where the holder is convicted of

a traffic infraction for a first violation of article twenty-six of this

chapter and the commission of such violation   caused serious physical

injury to another person, except: (A) where the holder is convicted of a

traffic   infraction for a   first violation of section eleven hundred

forty-six of this chapter and the commission of such violation   caused

serious physical injury to another person, the suspension shall be for a

period of six months; and (B) where the holder is convicted of a traffic

infraction for a second violation of section eleven hundred forty-six of

this   chapter and the   commission of such   violation caused serious

physical injury to another person, and such person has previously been

convicted   of a traffic   infraction for a violation of section eleven

hundred forty-six of this chapter and the commission of such violation

caused   serious physical injury to another person within five years, the

suspension shall be for a period of one year.

 

 

Found in the Vehicle and Traffic Code. Although no reference to vulnerable user, it is a vulnerable user law. Rebuttable presumption language. Reference to criminal penalities.Look Into This Article:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/10/13/one-year-after-taking-effect-states-vulnerable-user-laws-gathering-dust/

 

Thursday, October 13, 2011 4 Comments

One Year After Taking Effect, State’s Vulnerable User Laws Gathering Dust

by Brad Aaron

 

Graph: Transportation Alternatives, based on data from New York State DMV

 

 

Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the adoption of Hayley and Diego’s Law, which established the charge of “careless driving” in New York State and gave police and prosecutors a new tool to hold motorists who injure pedestrians and cyclists accountable. Unfortunately, says Transportation Alternatives, over the past 12 months the law has gone largely unenforced by NYPD.

 

Intended to demarcate a middle ground between moving violations and more serious criminal charges, Hayley and Diego’s law prescribes that drivers who caused injury “while failing to exercise due care” be required to take a drivers education course and be subject to fines of up to $750, jail time of up to 15 days, and a license suspension of up to six months. But a law is only as effective as those who enforce it, and TA has found that applications of VTL 1146, the statute that includes Hayley and Diego’s Law as well as Elle’s Law, are as rare as ever.

 

 

 

Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng were killed in January 2009 when an idling, unattended van jumped a curb in Chinatown. The driver was not charged.

 

T.A. filed a Freedom Of Information request in May with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and found that the number of applications of VTL 1146 has remained more or less steady for the last few years. T.A. estimates that there will be approximately 77 citations of the statute in 2011 based on a total of 32 citations issued as of June this year, while 97 tickets were issued under 1146 in 2010, 87 in 2009, and 92 in 2008.   These statistics show that a year after these new penalties meant to protect New Yorkers went in effect, they are barely being applied.

 

“Our family worked hard for these laws to deter motorists from dangerous and lethal behavior,” said Wendy Cheung, Hayley Ng’s aunt. “Nothing can undo the crash that took Hayley away from us, but we can prevent tragedies like this from happening to other families. And we can hold someone who breaks the law and takes a life responsible for their actions. We hope the police will use all the tools at their disposal to bring justice to our streets and protect others from the pain of losing a loved one to traffic violence.”

 

It should be noted that, in the city, VTL 1146 is enforced by NYPD and the Department of Motor Vehicles and, while district attorneys may advise police to apply it in certain cases, it does not fall under DA purview except for repeat offenders.

 

Streetsblog has a message in with NYPD regarding TA’s findings.

 

Elle’s Law History:

 

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S7485A-2009

North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio § 403.99 Traffic Code Misdemeanor Classifications and Penalties(a)     Misdemeanor Classifications.(1)     General Classification. Whoever violates any provision of this Traffic Code or any regulation lawfully adopted pursuant thereto, for which violation no penalty is otherwise provided, is guilty of a minor misdemeanor on a first offense; on a second offense within one (1) year after the first offense, such person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree; on each subsequent offense within one (1) year after the first offense such person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree. (RC 4511.99). When any person is found guilty of a first offense for violation of Section 433.03, upon a finding that he or she operated a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit by ten (10) miles an hour or more, such person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. When any person is found guilty of a violation of division (b)(9) of Section 433.03, in addition to all other penalties provided by law, such person shall be fined two (2) times the usual amount imposed for the violation.

(2)     Street Racing. Whoever violates Section 433.07 is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(3)     Licensing Drivers. Whoever violates any provision of Sections 435.01 to 435.07, inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(4)  Accidents. Whoever violates any provision of Sections 435.15 to 435.17, inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(5)     Willfully Fleeing a Police Officer. Whoever violates division (b) of Section 403.02 is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(6)     Stopping for School Buses. Whoever violates division (a) of Section 431.38 is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(7)     Placing Dangerous Material on Streets. Whoever violates division (e) of Section 411.01 is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(8)   Bicycle Safety Violations. Whoever violates divisions (d) and (e) of Section 431.03, division (e) of Section 431.08, division (e) of Section 431.10, and Section 451.07 is guilty of a minor misdemeanor on a first offense; on each subsequent offense within one (1) year of the first offense such person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree; if such a violation causes a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle , such person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(b)     Penalties. Whoever is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of this Traffic Code shall be imprisoned for a definite term or fined, or both, which term of imprisonment and fine shall be fixed by the court as provided in this section.

 

Misdemeanor Classification Maximum Imprisonment Term Maximum

Fine

1st degree 6 months $1,000.00

2nd degree 90 days $750.00

3rd degree 60 days $500.00

4th degree 30 days $250.00

Minor None $150.00

 

(c)   License Suspension.

(1)     The trial judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law or ordinance, shall suspend for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than three (3) years or revoke the driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit or nonresident operating privileges of any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to any of the following:

A.     Division (a) of Section 431.38;

B.     Sections 435.01 to 435.07, inclusive;

The trial judge, in addition to suspensions or revocations of licenses, permits, or privileges pursuant to this division and in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law or by ordinance, shall impose a suspended jail sentence of not to exceed six (6) months, if that imprisonment was not imposed for the offense for which the person was convicted.

(2)     The trial judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law or ordinance, shall suspend or revoke the driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit or nonresident operating privileges of any person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of division (b) of Section 433.01. The length of the suspension or revocation imposed by the trial judge upon a person who is convicted or pleads guilty to a violation of division (b) of Section 433.01 shall be the same as that imposed pursuant to division (B) of RC 4507.16 upon a person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of RC 4511.19, or a municipal ordinance relating to operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse, or a municipal ordinance relating to operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in the blood, breath, or urine.

(3)     The trial judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court may, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law, suspend the license of any person for not more than fifteen (15) days who is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of operating a motor vehicle faster than five (5) miles per hour in excess of the prima-facie speed limits specified in Section 433.03 relating to passing a school building or grounds or operating a motor vehicle in a residential district. For any subsequent conviction of any such provision, the trial judge shall, in addition to or independent of all other penalties provided by law, suspend the license of any person for not more than thirty (30) days who is convicted of or pleads guilty to any offense specified in this division. The first five (5) days may not be suspended by the Court.

(Ord. No. 1659-12. Passed 4-15-13, eff. 4-19-13)

Oklahoma §47-11-1208. Overtaking and passing bicycle – Violations – Fines and penalties.A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three (3) feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.B. If a person violates the provisions of subsection A of this section and the violation results in a collision causing serious physical injury to another person, the person shall be subject to a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).

C. If a person violates the provisions of subsection A of this section and the violation results in the death of another person, the person shall be subject to a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law.

Added by Laws 2006, c. 173, § 3, eff. July 1, 2006.

 

Fine for violation of the three foot rule.
Oregon O.R.S. § 153.061 (Appearance by Defendant)O.R.S. § 801.608 (Definitions) 

West’s Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated

Title 14. Procedure in Criminal Matters Generally

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines

153.061. Appearance by defendant

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a defendant who has been issued a violation citation must either:

 

(a) Make a first appearance by personally appearing in court at the time indicated in the summons; or

(b) Make a first appearance in the manner provided in subsection (3) of this section before the time indicated in the summons.

 

(2) If a defendant is issued a violation citation for careless driving under ORS 811.135 on which a police officer noted that the offense contributed to an accident and that the cited offense appears to have contributed to the serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable user of a public way, the officer may not enter the amount of the presumptive fine on the summons and the defendant must make a first appearance by personally appearing in court at the time indicated in the summons.

 

(3) Except as provided in this section, a defendant who has been issued a violation citation may make a first appearance in the matter before the time indicated in the summons by one of the following means:

 

(a) The defendant may submit to the court a written or oral request for a trial.

(b) The defendant may enter a plea of no contest by delivering to the court the summons and a check or money order in the amount of the presumptive fine set forth in the summons. The entry of a plea under the provisions of this paragraph constitutes a waiver of trial and consent to the entry of a judgment forfeiting the presumptive fine. A no contest plea under this section is not subject to the requirements of ORS chapter 135 relating to the entry of pleas and, upon receipt of the plea, the court may enter judgment against the defendant without taking further evidence.

 

(4) The court may require that a defendant requesting a trial under subsection (3) of this section deposit an amount equal to the presumptive fine established under ORS 153.019 and 153.020 or such other amount as the court determines appropriate if the defendant has failed to appear in any court on one or more other charges in the past. If the defendant does not deposit the amount specified by the court, the defendant must personally appear in court at the time indicated in the summons. The amount deposited by the defendant may be applied against any fine imposed by the court, and any amount not so applied shall be refunded to the defendant at the conclusion of the proceedings.

 

(5) The court may require a defendant to appear personally in any case, or may require that all defendants appear in specified categories of cases.

 

(6) If a defendant has entered a no contest plea in the manner provided in subsection (3) of this section, and the court determines that the presumptive fine is not adequate by reason of previous convictions of the defendant, the nature of the offense charged or other circumstances, the court may require that a trial be held unless an additional fine amount is paid by the defendant before a specified date. Notice of an additional fine amount under this subsection may be given to the defendant by mail. In no event may the court require a total fine amount in excess of the maximum fine established for the violation by statute.

 

(7) If a defendant fails to make a first appearance on a citation for a traffic violation, as defined by ORS 801.557, fails to make a first appearance on a citation for a violation of ORS 471.430, or fails to appear at any other subsequent time set for trial or other appearance, the driving privileges of the defendant are subject to suspension under ORS 809.220.

 

****

West’s Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated

Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code

Chapter 801. General Provisions and Definitions for Oregon Vehicle Code

801.608. “Vulnerable user of a public way” defined

 

“Vulnerable user of a public way” means a pedestrian, a highway worker, a person riding an animal or a person operating any of the following on a public way, crosswalk or shoulder of the highway:

(1) A farm tractor or implement of husbandry;

(2) A skateboard;

(3) Roller skates;

(4) In-line skates;

(5) A scooter; or

(6) A bicycle.

****

 

West’s Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated

Title 59. Oregon Vehicle Code

811. Rules of the Road for Drivers

811.135. Careless driving; penalties

 

(1) A person commits the offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.

 

(2) The offense described in this section, careless driving, applies on any premises open to the public and is a Class B traffic violation unless commission of the offense contributes to an accident. If commission of the offense contributes to an accident, the offense is a Class A traffic violation.

 

(3) In addition to any other penalty imposed for an offense committed under this section, if the court determines that the commission of the offense described in this section contributed to the serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable user of a public way, the court shall:

(a) Impose a sentence that requires the person to:

(A) Complete a traffic safety course; and

(B) Perform between 100 and 200 hours of community service, notwithstanding ORS 137.129. The community service must include activities related to driver improvement and providing public education on traffic safety;

 

(b) Order, but suspend on the condition that the person complete the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subsection:

 

(A) A fine of up to $12,500, notwithstanding ORS 153.018; and

(B) A suspension of driving privileges for one year as provided in ORS 809.280; and

 

(c) Set a hearing date up to one year from the date of sentencing.

 

(4) At the hearing described in subsection (3)(c) of this section, the court shall:

(a) If the person has successfully completed the requirements described in subsection (3)(a) of this section, dismiss the penalties ordered under subsection (3)(b) of this section; or

(b) If the person has not successfully completed the requirements described in subsection (3)(a) of this section:

(A) Grant the person an extension based on good cause shown; or

(B) Order the penalties under subsection (3)(b) of this section.

 

(5) When a court orders a suspension under subsection (4) of this section, the court shall prepare and send to the Department of Transportation an order of suspension of driving privileges of the person. Upon receipt of an order under this subsection, the department shall take action as directed under ORS 809.280.

 

(6) The police officer issuing the citation for an offense under this section shall note on the citation if the cited offense appears to have contributed to the serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable user of a public way.

 

OREGON IS A LEADER IN PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF VULNERABLE USERS OF ROADSOregon has Laws in BOTH Criminal Code and Motor Vehicle Code

 

 

Legislative History:

Laws 2011, c. 597, § 313, in Subsec. (2), substituted “the cited offense appears to have contributed to the serious physical injury or death of a vulnerable user of a public way” for “vulnerable user of a public way suffered serious physical injury or death by reason of the offense.”

 

The 2011 amendment of this section by c. 597, § 313, explicitly amended this section as amended by Laws 2011, c. 597, § 25.

 

This Oregon law firm claims to have been active in helping the legislation to pass, and it has a bunch of materials on its website relating to vulnerable user laws: http://www.stc-law.com/vulnerable-user.html

 

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island 2013 — H 5777=======LC00305

=======

S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 2013

____________

A N A C T RELATING TO MOTOR AND OTHER VEHICLES – PASSING, USE OF LANES, AND

RULES OF THE ROAD

Introduced By: Representatives Tanzi, Handy, Tomasso, Winfield, and Martin

Date Introduced: February 28, 2013

Referred To: House Judiciary

It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows:

 

SECTION 1. Chapter 31-15 of the General Laws entitled “Passing, Use of Lanes, and

Rules of the Road” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section:

 

31-15-20. Unsafe passing of a vulnerable road user. –

 

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as “Frank’s Law”.

 

(b) For purposes of this section, “vulnerable road user” means: (1) A pedestrian; (2) A

bicyclist; (3) A police officer or emergency responder on duty while outside of a vehicle; (4) A highway worker performing duties outside a vehicle; (5) A person riding on or driving a

wheelchair, motorized or not; (6) A person using a skateboard, inline skates, or rollerskates; (7) A person riding on or driving an animal.

 

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of the general or public laws to the contrary, any

11 person, while operating a motor vehicle on a street or highway, who fails to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a vulnerable road user causing physical injury or death to the vulnerable road user shall be guilty of an offense pursuant to this section and shall be sentenced in addition to any other applicable criminal or civil statute as follows:

(1) To complete a traffic safety training session to be determined by the sentencing judge;

(2) To perform not less than ten (10) and not more than two hundred (200) hours of

community service;

(3) A suspension of his or her motor vehicle operator’s license for a period of not more

than one year; and

(4) A fine of not less than eighty-five dollars ($85.00) and not more than five thousand

dollars ($5,000).

Said fines and/or penalties are in addition to any other applicable criminal or civil

penalties provided by the general laws.

 

(d) Any person required to perform community service or traffic safety training pursuant

to this section shall complete such training session and perform such community service within one year of the date of sentencing. If the court determines that such person has not successfully completed the training session and performed the community service, the court shall grant the person an extension for good cause shown, or impose an additional fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and suspend such person’s motor vehicle operator’s license for a period of not more than one year.

 

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon passage.

 

Note: Legislation Proposed in 2011 and 2012 Failed.2013 Legislation Called “Frank’s Law”

 

Legislation proposed in 2013 has been recommended in Judiciary Committee to be “held for further study”

 

Naming the legislation after someone seems to be an approach some groups use.

South Carolina Title 56 – Motor Vehicles CHAPTER 5.UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAYS  

ARTICLE 27. BICYCLISTS AND USERS OF PLAY VEHICLES; RIGHTS AND DUTIES

SECTION 56-5-3445. Harassing or throwing object at person riding bicycle; penalty.

SECTION 56-5-3500. Violations of article; penalties.

 

******

 

SECTION 56-5-3445. Harassing or throwing object at person riding bicycle; penalty.

It is unlawful to harass, taunt, or maliciously throw an object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

HISTORY: 2008 Act No. 317, Section 3, eff June 10, 2008.

 

****

 

SECTION 56-5-3500. Violations of article; penalties.

 

(A) Except as otherwise provided, in the absence of another violation being cited, a violation of this article by the driver of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil fine of up to one hundred dollars unless a bicyclist is injured as a result of the violation.

(B) In the absence of another violation being cited, a person driving a motor vehicle who violates a provision of this article and the violation is the proximate cause of a:

(1) minor injury to a bicyclist, must be assessed a civil fine of up to five hundred dollars; or

(2) great bodily injury, as defined in Section 56-5-2945, to a bicyclist, must be assessed a civil fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 46-460; 1952 Code Section 46-460; 1949 (46) 466; 2008 Act No. 317, Section 3, eff June 10, 2008.

Not an explicit vulnerable user act, but offers protections for bicyclists and penalties for drivers.Found in Motor Vehicle Code.

 

Assesses civil fines for violation of any portion of article 7 if there are no other violations cited. Not sure who these are paid to and how this ties in with other remedies.

 

Call the South Carolina Bike law people to discuss:

 

Peter Wilborn
Derfner, Altman & Wilborn
575 King Street, Suite B
Charleston, SC 29403

(843) 723-9804
peter@bikelaw.com

South Dakota
Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-197 Title 55 Motor and Other Vehicles Chapter 8 Operation of Vehicles — Rules of the Road

Part 1 Operation of Vehicles — Rules of the Road

Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-197   (2013)

 

55-8-197. Failure to yield right of way.

 

(a) Any person who violates subdivisions (a)(1)-(6) and the violation results in an accident resulting in serious bodily injury to or death of any person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor:

 

(1) Section 55-8-115 by failing to drive on the right half of the roadway as provided in the section, except for those motor vehicles in compliance with § 55-7-115 or § 55-7-202;

 

(2) Section 55-8-118 or § 55-8-119 by unlawfully overtaking and passing another vehicle as provided in those sections;

 

(3) Section 55-8-128, § 55-8-129, § 55-8-130 or § 55-8-131 by failing to yield the right of way as provided in those sections;

 

(4) Section 55-8-134, by failing to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in crosswalks as provided in the section;

 

(5) Section 55-8-136, by failing to exercise due care as provided in the section; or

 

   (6) Section 55-8-175(c), by failing to overtake and pass a bicycle safely as provided in § 55-8-175(c).

 

(b) For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “serious bodily injury” means:

 

(1) Substantial risk of death;

 

(2) Serious disfigurement; or

 

(3) Protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member, organ or mental faculty.

 

(c) (1) A violation of subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) if the accident results in serious bodily injury of another.

 

(2) A violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars ($500) if the accident results in the death of another.

 

(d) The court shall send the department a record of any of the convictions of any of the sections indicated in subsection (a). The court shall indicate on the record or abstract whether the violation resulted in serious bodily injury of another or death of another.

 

(e) Upon conviction, the court may revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a person convicted under this section for a period of up to six (6) months, if the accident results in serious bodily injury of another, and up to one (1) year if the accident results in death of another.

 

HISTORY: Acts 2007, ch. 537, § 1; 2009, ch. 342, § 1; 2011, ch. 192, §§ 2, 3.

Not an explicit vulnerable user act, but offers protections for bicyclists and penalties for drivers.Found in Motor Vehicle Code.

 

Texas 2009 Vulnerable Legislation WAS Vetoed!!!!2013 Legislation Did Not Make It to Floor In Time for a Vote.Texas Appears to Be Using Ordinance Adoption to Put Pressure on State to Adopt Law. SEE BELOW History of the Statewide Bill In 2009, after passing the Texas House and Senate by overwhelming majorities, with a unanimous vote in the House, and a vote of 25-5 in the Senate, and after hundreds of calls of support for the bill from constituents in the final hours, Governor Rick Perry vetoed the bill on June 19, 2009.The 2009 Texas Safe Passing bill was filed in the Senate by Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) and John Carona (R-Dallas) as SB 488 on January 15th, and the companion bill was filed in the House by Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving) as HB 827 on January 27th. The final, slightly modified bill was overwhelmingly passed by both the House and Senate and sent on to the governor. It was endorsed by AAA, AARP, Texas Motorcycle Rights Association, Texas Towing and Storage Association and BikeTexas’ Individual, Event, Business and Club member base. (See Safe Passing Bill, SB 488 at the Texas Legislature.)

Governor Perry stated in his veto declaration that the bill “contradicts much of the current statute and places the liability and responsibility on the operator of a motor vehicle”; however (1) the Texas Transportation Code already requires vehicles to pass “at a safe distance”, but does not define what that distance is, and (2) the bill does not include a presumption of liability, and provides a defense to prosecution for the motorist if the vulnerable road user was in violation of the law at the time of the incident.

In 2011, BikeTexas focused legislative efforts on Complete Streets legislation, and did not pursue Safe Passing at the state level, opting instead to focus efforts on city ordinances throughout the state.

In 2013, a new Texas Safe Passing Bill was filed and passed the transportation committees of both the House and the Senate, but not in time to reach the floor for a full vote.

– See more at: http://www.biketexas.org/advocacy/safe-passing#sthash.oKhxJuPh.dpuf

 

Safe Passing / Vulnerable Road User Ordinances with language stipulating a safe passing distance have been passed in 22 Texas Cities, including Alamo, Alton, Austin, Beaumont, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Denton, Edinburg, El Paso, Fort Worth, Harlingen, Helotes, Houston, McAllen, Mission, New Braunfels, Palmhurst, Pharr, Plano, San Antonio, San Juan, and Weslaco. – See more at: http://www.biketexas.org/advocacy/safe-passing#sthash.oKhxJuPh.dpuf

Austin, Texas ORDINANCE § 12-1-35 VULNERABLE ROAD USERS.(a) In this section, a Vulnerable Road User means:

(1) a pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person, child, skater,

highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck operator, utility worker, other

worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist

or passenger;

(2) a person on horseback;

(3) a person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle, including, but

notlimited to, a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or unprotected farm

equipment; or

(4) a person operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motorassisted

scooter.

(b) An operator of a motor vehicle passing avulnerable road user operating on a

highway or street shall:

(1) vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if the highway

has two or more marked lanes running in the same direction; or

(2) pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.

(c) For the purpose of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance

is at least:

(1) three feet if the operator’s vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or

(2) six feet if the operator’s vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or a

commercial motor vehicle as defined by Texas Transportation Code Section 522.003.

(d) An operator of a motor vehicle that is making a left turn at an intersection,

including an intersection with an alley or private road or driveway, shall yield the rightof-

way to a vulnerable road user who is approaching from the opposite direction and is in

the intersection, or is in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.

(e) An operator of a motor vehicle may not overtake a vulnerable road user

traveling in the same direction and subsequently make a right-hand turn in front of the

vulnerable road user unless the operator is safely clear of the vulnerable road user, taking

into account the speed at which the vulnerable road user is traveling and the braking

requirements of the motor vehicle making the right-hand turn.

(f) An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a manner that:

(1) is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable road user; or

(2) threatens a vulnerable road user.

(g) An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with

anyvulnerable road user on a roadway or inan intersection of roadways.

(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of

the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.

Source: Ord. 20091022-030.

Beaumont, Texas  
Brownsville, Texas  
Corpus Christi, Texas  
Dallas, Texas Failed? http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/protections-for-dallas-bicyclists-going-to-city-council-wednesday.html/
Denton, Texas Ordinance 2011-046 http://www.cityofdenton.com/home/showdocument?id=9280http://thecityfix.com/blog/safe-passage-for-vulnerable-road-users/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thecityfix%2Fposts+%28TheCityFix%29
Edinburg, Texas City Ordinance 2011-3485
El Paso, Texas City Ordinance No. 17466 12.80.220 Vulnerable road users.

 

A. In this section, a vulnerable road user means:

 

1. A pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger;

 

2. A person on horseback; or

 

3. A person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or unprotected farm equipment.

 

B. An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall:

 

1.Vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if the highway or street has two or more marked lanes running in the same direction; or

 

2. Pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.

 

C. For the purpose of subsection B.2., when road conditions allow, safe distance is at least:

 

1.Three feet if the operator’s vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or

 

2. Six feet if the operator’s vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Texas Transportation Code Section 522.003.

 

D. An operator of a motor vehicle that is making a left turn at an intersection, including an intersection with an alley or private road or driveway, shall yield the right-of-way to a vulnerable road user who is approaching from the opposite direction and is in the intersection, or is in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.

 

E. An operator of a motor vehicle may not overtake a vulnerable road user traveling in the same direction and subsequently make a right-hand turn in front of the vulnerable road user unless the operator is safely clear of the vulnerable road user, taking into account the speed at which the vulnerable road user is traveling and the braking requirements of the motor vehicle making the right-hand turn.

 

F. An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a manner that:

 

1. Is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable road user; or

2. Threatens a vulnerable road user.

 

G. An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an intersection of roadways.

 

H. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.

 

(Ord. No. 17466, § 1, 12-7-2010)

 

Does not offer remedies in the text.Police Alert at Time of Passing of Ordinance: http://home.elpasotexas.gov/police-department/documents/MVRC%20Alert.pdf

 

Health Brochure from City of Portland:

 

http://home.elpasotexas.gov/health/brochures/brochure-galatzan.pdf

 

 

Fort Worth, Texas ORDINANCE NO. 19570-03-2011
Harlingen, Texas
Helotes, Texas  
Houston, Texas April 10, 2013 Power Point Presentation on Proposed City Ordinance by City Attorney:http://www.houstontx.gov/council/h/committee/20130410/vulnerableroaduser.pdf
McAllen, Texas
Mission, Texas
New Braunfels, Texas
Palmhurst, Texas
Pharr, Texas
Plano, Texas http://planotx.org/City_Hall/agendas/CouncilAgendas/Lists/POMItems/Attachments/680/12-12-11%20-%20PASSING.pdf
San Antonio, Texas
San Juan, Texas
Weslaco, Texas
Utah U.C.A. 1953 § 41-6a-706.5  West’s Utah Code Annotated

Title 41. Motor Vehicles

Chapter 6A. Traffic Code

Part 7. Driving on Right Side of Highway and Passing

§ 41-6a-706.5. Definitions–Operation of motor vehicle near a vulnerable user of a highway prohibited–Endangering a vulnerable user of a highway prohibited

 

(1) As used in this section, “vulnerable user of a highway” means:

(a) a pedestrian, including a person engaged in work upon a highway or upon utilities facilities along a highway or providing emergency services within the right-of-way of a highway;

(b) a person riding an animal; or

(c) a person operating any of the following on a highway:

(i) a farm tractor or implement of husbandry, without an enclosed shell;

(ii) a skateboard;

(iii) roller skates;

(iv) in-line skates;

(v) a bicycle;

(vi) an electric-assisted bicycle;

(vii) an electric personal assistive mobility device;

(viii) a moped;

(ix) a motor-driven cycle;

(x) a motorized scooter;

(xi) a motorcycle; or

(xii) a manual wheelchair.

 

 

(2) An operator of a motor vehicle may not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly:

 

(a) operate a motor vehicle within three feet of a vulnerable user of a highway;

 

(b) distract or attempt to distract a vulnerable user of a highway for the purpose of causing violence or injury to the vulnerable user of a highway; or

 

(c) force or attempt to force a vulnerable user of a highway off of the roadway for a purpose unrelated to public safety.

 

 

(3)(a) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), a violation of Subsection (2) is a class C misdemeanor.

(b) A violation of Subsection (2) that results in bodily injury to the vulnerable user of a highway is a class B misdemeanor.

 

 

 

Law Under Motor Vehicle CodeLegislative History:

Laws 2005, c. 216, § 1, eff. May 2, 2005; Laws 2013, c. 431, § 1, eff. May 14, 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

Laws 2013, c. 431, § 1, rewrote the section, which formerly read:

“An operator of a motor vehicle may not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly operate a motor vehicle within three feet of a moving bicycle, unless the operator of the motor vehicle operates the motor vehicle within a reasonable and safe distance of the bicycle.”

 

Vermont 23 V.S.A. § 4 (81) (Definitions)23 V.S.A. § 1033 (Passing motor vehicles and vulnerable users)23 V.S.A. § 1039. Following too closely, crowding, and harassment

 

West’s Vermont Statutes Annotated

Title Twenty-Three. Motor Vehicles

Chapter 1. General Provisions

§ 4. Definitions

 

(81) “Vulnerable user” means a pedestrian; an operator of highway building, repair, or maintenance equipment or of agricultural equipment; a person operating a wheelchair or other personal mobility device, whether motorized or not; a person operating a bicycle or other nonmotorized means of transportation (such as, but not limited to, roller skates, rollerblades, or roller skis); or a person riding, driving, or herding an animal.

***

 

West’s Vermont Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title Twenty-Three. Motor Vehicles

Full text of all sections at this level Chapter 13. Operation of Vehicles

Full text of all sections at this level Subchapter 3. Use of Roadway

 

Current selection§ 1033. Passing motor vehicles and vulnerable users

 

 

 

 

(a) Passing motor vehicles. Motor vehicles proceeding in the same direction may be overtaken and passed only as follows:

 

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking another motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction may pass to its left at a safe distance, and when so doing shall exercise due care, shall not pass to the left of the center of the highway unless the way ahead is clear of approaching traffic, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.

 

(2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken motor vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking motor vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

 

 

(b) Passing vulnerable users. The operator of a motor vehicle approaching or passing a vulnerable user as defined in subdivision 4(81) of this title shall exercise due care, which includes increasing clearance, to pass the vulnerable user safely, and shall cross the center of the highway only as provided in subdivision (a)(1) of this section

 

***

 

West’s Vermont Statutes Annotated

Title Twenty-Three. Motor Vehicles

Chapter 13. Operation of Vehicles

Subchapter 3. Use of Roadway

§ 1039. Following too closely, crowding, and harassment

 

(a) The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon, and the conditions of, the highway. The operator of a vehicle shall not, in a careless or imprudent manner, approach, pass, or maintain speed unnecessarily close to a vulnerable user as defined in subdivision 4(81) of this title, and an occupant of a vehicle shall not throw any object or substance at a vulnerable user.

 

 

(b) The driver of any vehicle, when traveling upon a roadway outside a business or residential district and which is following another vehicle shall, whenever conditions permit, leave sufficient space so that an overtaking vehicle may enter and occupy the space without danger, except that this shall not prevent a vehicle from overtaking and passing any other vehicle.

 

 

(c) Vehicles being driven upon any roadway in a caravan or motorcade, other than a funeral procession, shall be so operated as to allow sufficient space between each vehicle or combination of vehicles so as to enable any other vehicle to enter and occupy the space without danger.

 

Law in Motor Vehicle CodeLaw in Passing Section 

NOTE: THERE IS NEW ADDITIONAL PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT IS PENDING

(SEE BELOW)

 

Vermont Pending Senate Bill 135http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/Intro/S-135.pdf

 

Pending House Bill 209

 

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/Intro/H-209.pdf

 

Virginia
Washington RCWA 46.61.526 (Negligent Driving)West’s Revised Code of Washington Annotated

Title 46. Motor Vehicles

Chapter 46.61. Rules of the Road

Reckless Driving, Driving Under the Influence, Vehicular Homicide and Assault

46.61.526. Negligent driving–Second degree–Vulnerable user victim–Penalties–Definitions

 

(1) A person commits negligent driving in the second degree with a vulnerable user victim if, under circumstances not constituting negligent driving in the first degree, he or she operates a vehicle, as defined in RCW 46.04.670, in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, and he or she proximately causes the death, great bodily harm, or substantial bodily harm of a vulnerable user of a public way.

 

(2) The law enforcement officer or prosecuting authority issuing the notice of infraction for an offense under this section shall state on the notice of infraction that the offense was a proximate cause of death, great bodily harm, or substantial bodily harm, as defined in RCW 9A.04.110, of a vulnerable user of a public way.

 

(3) Persons under the age of sixteen who commit an infraction under this section are subject to the provisions of RCW 13.40.250.

 

(4) A person found to have committed negligent driving in the second degree with a vulnerable user victim shall be required to:

(a) Pay a monetary penalty of five thousand dollars, which may not be reduced to an amount less than one thousand dollars; and

(b) Have his or her driving privileges suspended for ninety days.

 

 

(5) In lieu of the penalties imposed under subsection (4) of this section, a person found to have committed negligent driving in the second degree with a vulnerable user victim who requests and personally appears for a hearing pursuant to RCW 46.63.070 (1) or (2) may elect to:

(a) Pay a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars;

(b) Attend traffic school for a number of days to be determined by the court pursuant to chapter 46.83 RCW;

(c) Perform community service for a number of hours to be determined by the court, which may not exceed one hundred hours, and which must include activities related to driver improvement and providing public education on traffic safety; and

(d) Submit certification to the court establishing that the requirements of this subsection have been met within one year of the hearing.

 

(6) If a person found to have committed a violation of this section elects the penalties imposed under subsection (5) of this section, the court may impose the penalties under subsection (5) of this section and the court may assess costs as the court deems appropriate for administrative processing.

 

(7) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, if a person found to have committed a violation of this section elects the penalties under subsection (5) of this section but does not complete all requirements of subsection (5) of this section within one year of the hearing:

(a)(i) The court shall impose a monetary penalty in the amount of five thousand dollars, which may not be reduced to an amount less than one thousand dollars; and (ii) The person’s driving privileges shall be suspended for ninety days.

(b) For good cause shown, the court may extend the period of time in which the person must complete the requirements of subsection (5) of this section before any of the penalties provided in this subsection are imposed.

 

(8) An offense under this section is a traffic infraction. To the extent not inconsistent with this section, the provisions of chapter 46.63 RCW shall apply to infractions under this section. Procedures for the conduct of all hearings provided for in this section may be established by rule of the supreme court.

 

(9) If a person is penalized under subsection (4) of this section, then the court shall notify the department, and the department shall suspend the person’s driving privileges. If a person fails to meet the requirements of subsection (5) of this section, the court shall notify the department that the person has failed to meet the requirements of subsection (5) of this section and the department shall suspend the person’s driving privileges. Notice provided by the court under this subsection must be in a form specified by the department.

 

(10) Any act prohibited by this section that also constitutes a crime under any other law of this state may be the basis of prosecution under such other law notwithstanding that it may also be the basis for prosecution under this section.

 

(11) For the purposes of this section:

(a) “Great bodily harm” and “substantial bodily harm” have the same meaning as provided in RCW 9A.04.110.

(b) “Negligent” has the same meaning as provided in RCW 46.61.525(2).

(c) “Vulnerable user of a public way” means:

(i) A pedestrian;

(ii) A person riding an animal; or

(iii) A person operating any of the following on a public way:

(A) A farm tractor or implement of husbandry, without an enclosed shell;

(B) A bicycle;

(C) An electric-assisted bicycle;

(D) An electric personal assistive mobility device;

(E) A moped;

(F) A motor-driven cycle;

(G) A motorized foot scooter; or

(H) A motorcycle.

 

***

West’s Revised Code of Washington Annotated

Title 46. Motor Vehicles

Chapter 46.63.

46.63.070. Response to notice–Contesting determination–Hearing–Failure to respond or appear

 

(1) Any person who receives a notice of traffic infraction shall respond to such notice as provided in this section within fifteen days of the date of the notice.

 

(2) If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the determination the person shall respond by completing the appropriate portion of the notice of infraction and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the court specified on the notice. A check or money order in the amount of the penalty prescribed for the infraction must be submitted with the response. When a response which does not contest the determination is received, an appropriate order shall be entered in the court’s records, and a record of the response and order shall be furnished to the department in accordance with RCW 46.20.270.

 

(3) If the person determined to have committed the infraction wishes to contest the determination the person shall respond by completing the portion of the notice of infraction requesting a hearing and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the court specified on the notice. The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place, and date of the hearing, and that date shall not be sooner than seven days from the date of the notice, except by agreement.

 

(4) If the person determined to have committed the infraction does not contest the determination but wishes to explain mitigating circumstances surrounding the infraction the person shall respond by completing the portion of the notice of infraction requesting a hearing for that purpose and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the court specified on the notice. The court shall notify the person in writing of the time, place, and date of the hearing.

 

(5)(a) Except as provided in (b), (c), and (d) of this subsection, in hearings conducted pursuant to subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the court may defer findings, or in a hearing to explain mitigating circumstances may defer entry of its order, for up to one year and impose conditions upon the defendant the court deems appropriate. Upon deferring findings, the court may assess costs as the court deems appropriate for administrative processing. If at the end of the deferral period the defendant has met all conditions and has not been determined to have committed another traffic infraction, the court may dismiss the infraction.

(b) A person may not receive more than one deferral within a seven-year period for traffic infractions for moving violations and more than one deferral within a seven-year period for traffic infractions for nonmoving violations.

(c) A person who is the holder of a commercial driver’s license or who was operating a commercial motor vehicle at the time of the violation may not receive a deferral under this section.

(d) A person who commits negligent driving in the second degree with a vulnerable user victim may not receive a deferral for this infraction under this section.

 

 

(6) If any person issued a notice of traffic infraction:

(a) Fails to respond to the notice of traffic infraction as provided in subsection (2) of this section; or

(b) Fails to appear at a hearing requested pursuant to subsection (3) or (4) of this section;

the court shall enter an appropriate order assessing the monetary penalty prescribed for the traffic infraction and any other penalty authorized by this chapter and shall notify the department in accordance with RCW 46.20.270, of the failure to respond to the notice of infraction or to appear at a requested hearing.

 

West Virginia
Wisconsin COMPREHENSIVE AND THOUGHTFUL PROPOSED LEGISLATION 2013 – 2014 LEGISLATURE

2013 Assembly BILL 388 (Corresponds with Senate Bill 307)

 

September 23, 2013 – Introduced by Representatives Bies, Zepnick, Ballweg,

Berceau, Billings, Czaja, Doyle, Kahl, T. Larson, Ohnstad, A. Ott, Riemer,

Ripp and Sinicki, cosponsored by Senators Olsen, Shilling, T. Cullen,

Lehman, Risser and Schultz. Referred to Committee on Transportation.

 

An Act to amend 343.30 (1), 343.31 (3) (a), 343.31 (3) (c), 343.31 (3) (f), 343.38

(1) (intro.), 343.38 (3), 345.47 (1) (intro.), 345.60 (1), 346.17 (4), 346.22 (1) (a),

(b), (d) and (e), 346.22 (3), 346.65 (3m), 346.65 (3p), 346.65 (3r), 346.95 (1) and

(2) and 349.06 (1) (a); and to create 38.04 (4) (e) 7., 115.28 (11) (g), 340.01 (74p),

343.31 (2t) (a) 4. and 5., 343.31 (2v), 343.71 (5) (g), 345.60 (5), 346.17 (6), 346.22

(5), 346.30 (5), 346.36 (3), 346.43 (4), 346.49 (5), 346.56 (5), 346.60 (6), 346.74

(7), 346.82 (3) and 346.95 (12) of the statutes; relating to: traffic violations

resulting in harm to vulnerable highway users, driver education instruction,

and providing a penalty.

 

 

 

The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do

enact as follows:

 

Section 1. 38.04 (4) (e) 7. of the statutes is created to read:

 

38.04 (4) (e) 7. Acquaints each student with the hazards posed by motor

vehicles to vulnerable highway users, as defined in s. 340.01 (74p), and provides at

least 30 minutes of instruction in safely dealing with these hazards.

 

Section 2. 115.28 (11) (g) of the statutes is created to read:

 

115.28 (11) (g) Acquaint each student with the hazards posed by motor vehicles 7to vulnerable highway users, as defined in s. 340.01 (74p), and provide at least 30

8minutes of instruction in safely dealing with these hazards.

 

Section 3. 340.01 (74p) of the statutes is created to read:

 

340.01 (74p) “Vulnerable highway user” means any of the following:

(a) A pedestrian.

(b) A bicyclist.

(c) An operator of a moped or motor bicycle.

(d) An operator of, or passenger on, an animal-drawn vehicle, farm tractor, farm truck tractor, farm trailer, or implement of husbandry.

(e) A person riding upon in-line skates, a horse, or a play vehicle.

(f) A law enforcement officer, traffic officer, fire fighter, or emergency medical

technician, while performing his or her official duties.

(g) A person who is rendering medical or emergency assistance to another

person.

 

Section 4. 343.30 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

343.30 (1) A court may suspend a person’s operating privilege for any period

not exceeding one year upon such person’s conviction in such court of violating any

of the state traffic laws or any local ordinance enacted under ch. 349, other than a

violation of s. 346.075, 346.18, 346.21, or 346.89, or a local ordinance in conformity

with s. 346.075, 346.18, 346.21, or 346.89, for which operating privilege suspension

is required under s. 343.31 (2t) (a) or (2v) (b).

 

Section 5. 343.31 (2t) (a) 4. and 5. of the statutes are created to read:

 

343.31 (2t) (a)

 

4. Notwithstanding subds. 1. to 3., for a period of 6 months, if

the offense resulted in great bodily harm to a vulnerable highway user but did not

result in death to a vulnerable highway user.

 

5. Notwithstanding subds. 1. to 3., for a period of one year, if the offense resulted

20in death to a vulnerable highway user.

 

Section 6. 343.31 (2v) of the statutes is created to read:

 

22 343.31 (2v)

 

(a) In this subsection:

 

1. “Great bodily harm” has the meaning given in s. 939.22 (14).

2. “Offense” means a violation of s. 346.075, 346.21, or 346.89, or a local

25ordinance in conformity with s. 346.075, 346.21, or 346.89.

 

(b) The department shall suspend a person’s operating privilege upon receiving

a record of conviction for an offense resulting in great bodily harm or death to a

vulnerable highway user, as follows:

 

1. For a period of 6 months, if the offense resulted in great bodily harm to a vulnerable highway user but did not result in death to a vulnerable highway user.

2. For a period of one year, if the offense resulted in death to a vulnerable

highway user.

 

(c) If a person is convicted of an offense resulting in great bodily harm or death

to a vulnerable highway user, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, the

department shall order the person to attend a safe driver course whose mode of

instruction is approved by the secretary and which is conducted by any regularly

established safety organization, by the provider of driver education courses approved

under s. 38.04 (4) or 115.28 (11), by a driver school licensed under s. 343.61, or by a

law enforcement agency. The course of instruction shall include skills and habits

promoting safe driving and shall acquaint the person with requirements and

restrictions for drivers under ss. 346.075, 346.21, and 346.89. If the course is

conducted by the provider of approved driver education courses or a driver school, the

provider or driver school shall issue to the person a certificate upon successful

completion of the course. If a person’s operating privilege has been suspended under

par. (b), the department may not reinstate the person’s operating privilege unless the

person has successfully completed the course required under this paragraph.

 

Section 7. 343.31 (3) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

343.31 (3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection or sub. (2m), (2s),

(2t), (2v), or (2x), all revocations or suspensions under this section shall be for a

period of one year.

 

Section 8. 343.31 (3) (c) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

343.31 (3) (c) Any person convicted under s. 940.09 of causing the death of

another or of an unborn child by the operation or handling of a motor vehicle shall

have his or her operating privilege revoked for 5 years. If there was a minor

passenger under 16 years of age or an unborn child, as defined in s. 939.75 (1), in the

motor vehicle at the time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under s.

940.09, the revocation period is 10 years. If the person convicted under s. 940.09

caused the death of a vulnerable highway user, the revocation period is 5 years and

6 months.

 

Section 9. 343.31 (3) (f) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

343.31 (3) (f) Any person convicted under s. 940.25 shall have his or her

operating privilege revoked for 2 years. If there was a minor passenger under 16

years of age or an unborn child, as defined in s. 939.75 (1), in the motor vehicle at the

time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under s. 940.25, the revocation

period is 4 years. If the person convicted under s. 940.25 caused great bodily harm

to a vulnerable highway user, the revocation period is 2 years and 6 months.

 

Section 10. 343.38 (1) (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

343.38 (1)Reinstatement after revocation. (intro.) Except as provided in ss.

343.10, 343.39, and 351.07, and subject to s. 345.60 (5), the department shall not

reinstate the operating privilege of a person whose operating privilege has been duly

revoked unless the period of revocation has expired and the person:

 

Section 11. 343.38 (3) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

343.38 (3)Reinstatement after suspension. Except as provided in sub. (2) and

s. 343.10, the department shall not reinstate the operating privilege of a person

whose operating privilege has been duly suspended while the suspension remains in

effect. Subject to s. 343.31 (2t) (b) and (2v) (c), upon the expiration of the period of

suspension, the person’s operating privilege is reinstated upon receipt by the

department of the fees specified in s. 343.21 (1) (j) and (n) and, for reinstatement of

an operating privilege suspended under ch. 344, the filing with the department of

proof of financial responsibility, if required, in the amount, form, and manner

specified under ch. 344.

 

Section 12. 343.71 (5) (g) of the statutes is created to read:

 

343.71 (5) (g) Acquaints each student with the hazards posed by motor vehicles to vulnerable highway users, as defined in s. 340.01 (74p), and provides at least 30

minutes of instruction in safely dealing with these hazards.

 

Section 13. 345.47 (1) (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

345.47 (1) (intro.) If the defendant is found guilty, the court may enter

judgment against the defendant for a monetary amount not to exceed the maximum

forfeiture provided for the violation, plus costs, fees, and surcharges imposed under

ch. 814, and, in addition, may suspend or revoke his or her operating privilege under

s. 343.30. If the violation is one described in s. 346.17 (6) (b) or (c), 346.22 (5) (b) or

(c), or 346.95 (12) (b) or (c), or if the forfeiture for the violation has been doubled under

s. 346.17 (6) (a), 346.22 (5) (a), 346.30 (5), 346.36 (3), 346.43 (4), 346.49 (5), 346.56

(5), 346.60 (6), 346.74 (7), 346.82 (3), 346.95 (12) (a), or 349.06 (1) (a), the court may

also order the defendant to perform community service work. Upon entering

judgment, the court shall notify the defendant personally, if the defendant is present,

and in writing that the defendant should notify the court if he or she is unable to pay

the judgment because of poverty, as that term is used in s. 814.29 (1) (d). If the

defendant is present and the court, using the criteria in s. 814.29 (1) (d), determines

that the defendant is unable to pay the judgment because of poverty, the court shall

provide the defendant with an opportunity to pay the judgment in installments,

taking into account the defendant’s income. If the judgment is not paid or if the

defendant fails to make any ordered installment payment, the court shall order:

Section 14. 345.60 (1) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

345.60 (1) Except as provided in sub. subs. (3) and (5) and s. 343.31 (2t) (b), in

addition to or in lieu of other penalties provided by law for violation of chs. 346 to 348,

the trial court may in its judgment of conviction order the convicted person to attend,

for a certain number of school days, a traffic safety school whose course and mode of

instruction is approved by the secretary and which is conducted by the police

department of the municipality, by the sheriff’s office of the county, or by any

regularly established safety organization. The trial court may not order a person to

attend a traffic safety school under this subsection if the department is required to

order that the person attend a vehicle right-of-way course under s. 343.31 (2t) (b)

or a safe driver course under sub. (5) or s. 343.31 (2v) (c).

 

Section 15. 345.60 (5) of the statutes is created to read:

 

345.60 (5) If a person is convicted of a violation of s. 346.62 (4), 940.10, or

940.25, or of s. 940.06 or 940.09 if the offense resulted from the operation of a motor

vehicle, resulting in great bodily harm or death to a vulnerable highway user, or

346.65 (2) or (6) resulting in injury to a vulnerable highway user, in addition to any

other penalty provided by law, the department shall order the person to attend a safe

driver course whose mode of instruction is approved by the secretary and which is

conducted by any regularly established safety organization, by the provider of driver

education courses approved under s. 38.04 (4) or 115.28 (11), by a driver school

licensed under s. 343.61, or by a law enforcement agency. The course of instruction

shall include skills and habits promoting safe driving and shall acquaint the person

with the hazards of reckless driving. If the course is conducted by the provider of

approved driver education courses or a driver school, the provider or driver school

shall issue to the person a certificate upon successful completion of the course. If a

person’s operating privilege has been revoked under s. 343.31 (1) (a), the department

may not reinstate the person’s operating privilege unless the person has successfully

completed the course required under this subsection.

 

Section 16. 346.17 (4) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

346.17 (4)Any Except as provided in sub. (6), any person violating s. 346.075

may be required to forfeit not less than $25 nor more than $200 for the first offense

and not less than $50 nor more than $500 for the 2nd or subsequent violation within

4 years.

 

Section 17. 346.17 (6) of the statutes is created to read:

 

346.17 (6) (a) 1. In this paragraph, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in

s. 939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

 

2. Except as provided in pars. (b) and (c), if any violation under ss. 346.04 to

346.16 results in harm to a vulnerable highway user, the amount of any forfeiture

or fine specified in subs. (1) to (4) or s. 939.50 for the violation shall be doubled. If

sub. (5) applies with respect to the violation, the doubling of the forfeiture under this

subsection shall apply in addition to any doubling under sub. (5).

 

(b) If any violation under s. 346.075 results in great bodily harm, as defined in

s. 939.22 (14), to a vulnerable highway user, the person who commits the violation

is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor as specified in s. 939.51 (3) (b).

 

(c) If any violation under s. 346.075 results in death to a vulnerable highway

user, the person who commits the violation is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor as

specified in s. 939.51 (3) (a).

 

Section 18. 346.22 (1) (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the statutes are amended to read:

2 346.22 (1) (a) Except as provided in par. (b), (c), (d), or (e) or sub. (5), any person

3violating s. 346.18, 346.20 (1), or 346.215 (2) (b) or (3) may be required to forfeit not

4less than $20 nor more than $50 for the first offense and not less than $50 nor more

5than $100 for the 2nd or subsequent conviction within a year.

 

6 (b) If an operator of a vehicle violates s. 346.18 (6) where persons engaged in

7work in a highway maintenance or construction area or in a utility work area are at

8risk from traffic, any applicable minimum and maximum forfeiture or fine specified

9in par. (a), (c), (d), or (e) or sub. (5) (c) and s. 939.51 (3) for the violation shall be

10doubled.

 

11 (d) If Except as provided in sub. (5) (b), if a person violates s. 346.18 and the

12violation results in great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), to another, the

13person shall forfeit $500.

 

14 (e) If Except as provided in sub. (5) (c), if a person violates s. 346.18 and the

15violation results in death to another, the person shall forfeit $1,000.

 

16Section 19. 346.22 (3) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

17 346.22 (3)Any Except as provided in sub. (5), any person violating s. 346.20

18(2), (3) or (4) (b) or (c) or 346.21 may be required to forfeit not less than $10 nor more

19than $20 for the first offense and not less than $25 nor more than $50 for the 2nd or

20subsequent conviction within a year.

 

21Section 20. 346.22 (5) of the statutes is created to read:

 

22 346.22 (5) (a) 1. In this paragraph, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in

23s. 939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

 

24

2. Except as provided in pars. (b) and (c), if any violation under s. 346.19, 25346.20, 346.21, or 346.215 results in harm to a vulnerable highway user, the amount

 

——————————————————————————–

1of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) to (3) for the violation shall be doubled. If sub.

2(1) (b) applies with respect to the violation, the doubling of the forfeiture under this

3subsection shall apply in addition to any doubling under sub. (1) (b).

 

4 (b) If any violation under s. 346.18 or 346.21 results in great bodily harm, as

5defined in s. 939.22 (14), to a vulnerable highway user, the person who commits the

6violation is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor as specified in s. 939.51 (3) (b).

7 (c) If any violation under s. 346.18 or 346.21 results in death to a vulnerable

8highway user, the person who commits the violation is guilty of a Class A

9misdemeanor as specified in s. 939.51 (3) (a).

 

10Section 21. 346.30 (5) of the statutes is created to read:

 

11

346.30 (5) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 12939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

13 (b) If any violation under ss. 346.23 to 346.29 results in harm to a vulnerable

14highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) to (4) for the violation

15shall be doubled.

 

16Section 22. 346.36 (3) of the statutes is created to read:

 

17

346.36 (3) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 18939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

19 (b) If any violation under ss. 346.31 to 346.35 results in harm to a vulnerable

20highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) and (2) for the

21violation shall be doubled.

 

22Section 23. 346.43 (4) of the statutes is created to read:

 

23

346.43 (4) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 24939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

 

——————————————————————————–

1(b) If any violation under ss. 346.37 to 346.42 results in harm to a vulnerable

2highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) to (3) for the violation

3shall be doubled. If sub. (1) (b) 3. applies with respect to the violation, the doubling

4of the forfeiture under this subsection shall apply in addition to any doubling under

5sub. (1) (b) 3.

 

6Section 24. 346.49 (5) of the statutes is created to read:

 

7 346.49 (5) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s.

8939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

 

9 (b) If any violation under s. 346.44, 346.45, 346.455, 346.46, or 346.47 to 346.48

10results in harm to a vulnerable highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified

11in subs. (1), (1g), (2), (2m), and (4) for the violation shall be doubled. If sub. (1) (c)

12applies with respect to the violation, the doubling of the forfeiture under this

13subsection shall apply in addition to any doubling under sub. (1) (c).

 

14Section 25. 346.56 (5) of the statutes is created to read:

 

15

346.56 (5) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 16939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

17 (b) If any violation under ss. 346.503 to 346.55 results in harm to a vulnerable

18highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) to (4) for the violation

19shall be doubled.

 

 

 

 

 

20Section 26. 346.60 (6) of the statutes is created to read:

 

21

346.60 (6) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 22939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

23 (b) If any violation under ss. 346.57 to 346.595 results in harm to a vulnerable

24highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) to (5) for the violation

25shall be doubled. If sub. (3m) applies with respect to the violation, the doubling of

 

——————————————————————————–

1the forfeiture under this subsection shall apply in addition to any doubling or other

2penalty enhancement under sub. (3m).

 

3Section 27. 346.65 (3m) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

4 346.65 (3m) Except as provided in sub. (3p) or (3r), any person violating s.

5346.63 (2) or (6) shall be fined not less than $300 nor more than $2,000 and may be

6imprisoned for not less than 30 days nor more than one year in the county jail. If

7there was a minor passenger under 16 years of age in the motor vehicle at the time

8of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under s. 346.63 (2) or (6), the offense

9is a felony, the applicable minimum and maximum fines or periods of imprisonment

10for the conviction are doubled and the place of imprisonment shall be determined

11under s. 973.02. If the injury was to a vulnerable highway user, the applicable

12minimum and maximum fines for the conviction are doubled.

 

13Section 28. 346.65 (3p) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

14 346.65 (3p) Any person violating s. 346.63 (2) or (6) is guilty of a Class H felony

15if the person has one or more prior convictions, suspensions, or revocations, as

16counted under s. 343.307 (1). If there was a minor passenger under 16 years of age

17in the motor vehicle at the time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under

18s. 346.63 (2) or (6), the offense is a felony and the applicable maximum fines or

19periods of imprisonment for the conviction are doubled. If the injury was to a

20vulnerable highway user, the applicable minimum and maximum fines for the

21conviction are doubled.

 

22Section 29. 346.65 (3r) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

23 346.65 (3r) In any county that opts to offer a reduced minimum period of

24imprisonment for the successful completion of a probation period that includes

25alcohol and other drug treatment, any person violating s. 346.63 (2) or (6) shall be

 

——————————————————————————–

1fined the same as under sub. (3m), but the period of imprisonment shall be not less

2than 30 days, except that if the person successfully completes a period of probation

3that includes alcohol and other drug treatment, the period of imprisonment shall be

4not less than 15 days. If there was a minor passenger under 16 years of age in the

5motor vehicle at the time of the violation that gave rise to the conviction under s.

6346.63 (2) or (6), the offense is a felony, the applicable minimum and maximum fines

7or periods of imprisonment for the conviction are doubled and the place of

8imprisonment shall be determined under s. 973.02. If the injury was to a vulnerable

9highway user, the applicable minimum and maximum fines for the conviction are

10doubled. A person may be sentenced under this subsection or under sub. (2) (bm) or

11(cm) or (2j) (bm) or (cm) once in his or her lifetime. This subsection does not apply

12to a person sentenced under sub. (3p).

 

13Section 30. 346.74 (7) of the statutes is created to read:

 

14

346.74 (7) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 15939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

16 (b) If any violation under s. 346.67 or ss. 346.68 to 346.70 results in harm to

17a vulnerable highway user, the amount of any forfeiture or fine specified in subs. (2)

18to (5) or s. 939.50 for the violation shall be doubled.

 

19Section 31. 346.82 (3) of the statutes is created to read:

 

20

346.82 (3) (a) In this subsection, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in s. 21939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

22 (b) If any violation under ss. 346.77 to 346.805 results in harm to a vulnerable

23highway user, the amount of any forfeiture specified in subs. (1) and (2) for the

24violation shall be doubled.

 

25Section 32. 346.95 (1) and (2) of the statutes are amended to read:

 

 

——————————————————————————–

1346.95 (1)Any Except as provided in sub. (12) (c), any person violating s.

2346.87, 346.88, 346.89 (2) or (4), 346.90 to 346.92 or 346.94 (1), (9), (10), (11), (12) or

3(15) may be required to forfeit not less than $20 nor more than $40 for the first offense

4and not less than $50 nor more than $100 for the 2nd or subsequent conviction within

5a year.

 

6(2)Any Except as provided in sub. (12) (c), any person violating s. 346.89 (1)

7or (3) (a) or 346.94 (2), (4), or (7) may be required to forfeit not less than $20 nor more

8than $400.

 

Section 33. 346.95 (12) of the statutes is created to read:

 

10

346.95 (12) (a) 1. In this paragraph, “harm” means bodily harm, as defined in 11s. 939.22 (4), great bodily harm, as defined in s. 939.22 (14), or death.

12 2. Except as provided in pars. (b) and (c), if any violation under ss. 346.87 to

13346.94 results in harm to a vulnerable highway user, the amount of any forfeiture

14specified in subs. (1) to (5e) and (6) to (11) for the violation shall be doubled.

 

(b) If any violation under s. 346.89 results in great bodily harm, as defined in

s. 939.22 (14), to a vulnerable highway user, the person who commits the violation

is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor as specified in s. 939.51 (3) (b).

 

(c) If any violation under s. 346.89 results in death to a vulnerable highway user, the person who commits the violation is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor as specified in s. 939.51 (3) (a).

 

Section 34. 349.06 (1) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

 

349.06 (1) (a) Except for the suspension or revocation of motor vehicle

operator’s licenses or except as provided in par. (b), any local authority may enact and

enforce any traffic regulation which is in strict conformity with one or more

provisions of chs. 341 to 348 and 350 for which the penalty for violation thereof is a forfeiture. If a local authority enacts a traffic regulation in strict conformity with any

provision of ch. 346 for which the penalty under ch. 346 is doubled if the violation

results in harm to a vulnerable highway user, the applicable penalty for the violation

under the ordinance shall also include the doubling of the forfeiture.

 

Section 35. Initial applicability.

 

(1) The treatment of sections 340.01 (74p), 343.30 (1), 343.31 (2t) (a) 4. and 5.,

(2v), and (3) (a), (c), and (f), 343.38 (1) and (3), 345.47 (1) (intro.), 345.60 (1) and (5),

346.17 (4) and (6), 346.22 (1) (a), (b), (d), and (e), (3), and (5), 346.30 (5), 346.36 (3),

346.43 (4), 346.49 (5), 346.56 (5), 346.60 (6), 346.65 (3m), (3p), and (3r), 346.74 (7),

346.82 (3), 346.95 (1), (2), and (12), and 349.06 (1) (a) of the statutes first applies to

violations committed on the effective date of this subsection.

 

(2) The treatment of sections 38.04 (4) (e) 7., 115.28 (11) (g), and 343.71 (5) (g)

of the statutes first applies to driver education courses that begin on the effective

date of this subsection.

 

Section 36. Effective date.

(1) This act takes effect on the first day of the 4th month beginning after publication.

 

Last Action: Public Hearing in late October of 2013LOOKS LIKE SERIOUS PREPARATION AND SOME FISCAL ANALYSIS DONE.

 

GO TO THEM AS A RESOURCE

 

Fiscal Estimates:

 

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/fe/ab388

 

https://lobbying.wi.gov/What/BillInformation/2013REG/Information/10434

 

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

 

This bill creates penalty enhancements for traffic violations that result in

bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death (collectively “harm”) to vulnerable highway

users. The bill defines “vulnerable highway user” as any of the following: 1) a

pedestrian; 2) a bicyclist; 3) an operator of a moped or motor bicycle; 4) an operator

of, or passenger on, an animal-drawn vehicle, farm tractor, farm truck tractor, farm

trailer, or implement of husbandry; 5) a person riding upon in-line skates, a horse,

or a play vehicle; 6) a law enforcement officer, traffic officer, fire fighter, or emergency

medical technician, while performing his or her official duties; or 7) a person who is

rendering medical or emergency assistance to another person. For most traffic

violations, the bill doubles the applicable forfeiture or fine if the violation results in

harm to a vulnerable highway user, and this doubling is in addition to any other

applicable penalty enhancement, such as the doubling for certain traffic violations

committed in highway maintenance or construction areas or in utility work areas.

However, as discussed below, for specific violations, the bill makes the offense a Class

B misdemeanor if the violation results in great bodily harm to a vulnerable highway

user or a Class A misdemeanor if the violation results in death to a vulnerable

highway user. A Class B misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000

or imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both. A Class A misdemeanor is

punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 9 months

or both.

 

Under current law, a person who causes the death of another by operating or

handling a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant is guilty of a Class D

felony or, if the person has been convicted of a prior operating under the influence

of an intoxicant or other drug (OWI) offense relating to, a Class C felony. A Class C

felony is punishable by a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding

40 years or both. A Class D felony is punishable by a fine not exceeding $100,000 or

imprisonment not exceeding 25 years or both. In addition, if a person is convicted

of causing the death of another by OWI, the Department of Transportation (DOT)

must in most cases revoke the person’s operating privilege for 5 years. A person who

causes great bodily harm to another by OWI is guilty of a Class F felony. A Class F

felony is punishable by a fine not exceeding $25,000 or imprisonment not exceeding

12 years and 6 months or both. In addition, if a person is convicted of causing great

bodily harm to another by OWI, DOT must in most cases revoke the person’s

operating privilege for 2 years. A person who causes injury to another by OWI may

be fined not less then $300 nor more than $2,000 and imprisoned for not less than

30 days nor more than one year or, if the person has been convicted of a prior

OWI-related offense, is guilty of a Class H felony.

 

Under this bill, the penalties are doubled for a person who causes injury by OWI

to a vulnerable highway user. Also, DOT must in most cases revoke the person’s

operating privilege for 5 years and 6 months or 2 years and 6 months, respectively,

for a person who causes the death of a vulnerable highway user by OWI or great

bodily harm to a vulnerable highway user by OWI.

 

Under current law, the operator of a vehicle must yield the right-of-way to

another vehicle under certain circumstances, including: when turning left across

traffic; at an intersection posted with a yield sign; when entering a through highway

or a highway from an alley or driveway or from a parked or standing position; or when

entering a highway from another highway that ends at a “T” intersection. A person

who fails to yield the right-of-way as required is subject to a forfeiture of not less

than $20 nor more than $50 for a first offense and not less than $50 nor more than

$100 for any subsequent offense within a year. However, if the violation results in

bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death to another, the person must forfeit,

respectively, $200, $500, or $1,000 for the violation and DOT must suspend the

person’s operating privilege for, respectively, 2 months, 3 months or 9 months. Before

the person’s operating privilege may be reinstated, the person must complete a

vehicle right-of-way course approved by DOT.

 

Under this bill, the penalty for a failure to yield violation is increased to a Class

B misdemeanor if the violation results in great bodily harm to a vulnerable highway

user and is increased to a Class A misdemeanor if the violation results in death to

a vulnerable highway user. In addition to these increased penalties, DOT must

suspend the violator’s operating privilege for, respectively, six months or one year.

As under current law, before the person’s operating privilege may be reinstated, the

person must complete a vehicle right-of-way course approved by DOT.

 

Under current law, the operator of a motor vehicle must yield the right-of-way

to livestock being driven over or along the highway. A person who fails to yield the

right-of-way to livestock is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $10 nor more than

$20 for the first offense and not less than $25 nor more than $50 for the second or

subsequent offense within a year.

 

Under this bill, the penalty for a failure to yield to livestock violation is

increased to a Class B misdemeanor if the violation results in great bodily harm to

a vulnerable highway user and is increased to a Class A misdemeanor if the violation

results in death to a vulnerable highway user. In addition to these increased

penalties, DOT must suspend the violator’s operating privilege for, respectively, six

months or one year. Before the person’s operating privilege may be reinstated, the

person must complete a safe driver course approved by DOT.

 

Under current law, the operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle

proceeding in the same direction must exercise due care, leaving a safe distance but

at least three feet clearance when passing the bicycle, and must maintain clearance

until safely past the overtaken bicycle. Also, if the operator of a motor vehicle

overtakes a motor bus that is stopped at an intersection on the right side of the

roadway and that is receiving or discharging passengers, the operator must pass at

a safe distance to the left of the motor bus and may not turn to the right in front of

the motor bus at that intersection. A person who commits such a passing violation

is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $25 nor more than $200 for the first offense

and not less than $50 nor more than $500 for the second or subsequent offense within

four years.

 

Under this bill, the penalty for a passing violation is increased to a Class B

misdemeanor if the violation results in great bodily harm to a vulnerable highway

user and is increased to a Class A misdemeanor if the violation results in death to

a vulnerable highway user. In addition to these increased penalties, DOT must

suspend the violator’s operating privilege for, respectively, six months or one year.

Before the person’s operating privilege may be reinstated, the person must complete

a safe driver course approved by DOT.

 

Current law prohibits inattentive driving of a motor vehicle, which includes:

1) being so engaged or occupied, while driving a motor vehicle, as to interfere with

the safe driving of the vehicle; 2) operating a motor vehicle equipped with a television

or similar device in the front of the vehicle or otherwise visible to the operator; and

3) driving a motor vehicle while composing or sending an electronic text message or

 

——————————————————————————–

an e-mail message; and 4) driving a motor vehicle while using a cellular or wireless

telephone, if the driver holds a probationary license or instruction permit. Any

person who commits form 1) or 3) of inattentive driving is subject to a forfeiture of

not less than $20 nor more than $400 and any person who commits form 2) or 4) of

inattentive driving is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $20 nor more than $40

for the first offense and not less than $50 nor more than $100 for the second or

subsequent offense within a year.

 

Under this bill, the penalty for an inattentive driving violation is increased to

a Class B misdemeanor if the violation results in great bodily harm to a vulnerable

highway user and is increased to a Class A misdemeanor if the violation results in

death to a vulnerable highway user. In addition to these increased penalties, DOT

must suspend the violator’s operating privilege for, respectively, six months or one

year. Before the person’s operating privilege may be reinstated, the person must

complete a safe driver course approved by DOT.

 

Under current law, local authorities may enact and enforce traffic regulations

that are in strict conformity with state statutes and that provide for a forfeiture as

a penalty.

 

Under this bill, if a local authority enacts a traffic regulation in strict

conformity with a state statute and the statutory penalty is doubled if the violation

results in harm to a vulnerable highway user, the applicable ordinance penalty for

the ordinance violation must also include the doubling of the forfeiture.

 

Current law allows a court to order a person who is convicted of a traffic

violation to attend traffic safety school. However, as discussed above, for a vehicle

failure-to-yield violation, DOT, rather than a court, must order the violator to attend

a vehicle right-of-way course.

 

Current law prohibits a person from causing bodily harm, great bodily harm,

or death to another by the negligent operation of a vehicle (reckless driving). A

person who commits a reckless driving violation that causes great bodily harm or

death must have his or her operating privilege revoked by DOT for one year.

 

Under this bill, if a person is convicted of a reckless driving violation that causes

great bodily harm or death, or of causing the death of another or great bodily harm

or injury to another by OWI, DOT must order the person to attend a safe driver course

approved by DOT and the person must successfully complete the course before DOT

may reinstate the person’s operating privilege. This course is required in addition

to any other penalty imposed for the violation.

 

Under current law, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) must approve

driver education courses offered by school districts, county children with disabilities

education boards, and technical college districts. DPI must also establish minimum

standards for driver education courses offered by private driver schools. DPI may

not approve a driver education course or establish driver education course standards

unless the course or standards include certain content, such as acquainting students

with the hazards posed by farm machinery and animals on highways and by railroad

grade crossings and providing instruction in safely dealing with these hazards.

 

Under current law, the Technical College System Board (TCSB) must approve

courses of study for each program offered in technical college district schools,

including driver education courses. TCSB may not approve a driver education course

unless the course includes certain content, such as acquainting students with the

hazards posed by farm machinery and animals on highways and by railroad grade

crossings and providing instruction in safely dealing with these hazards. DOT

licenses private driver schools and DOT may not license a driver school unless its

course of instruction includes the content required for TCSB approval of a driver

education course.

 

Under this bill, all approved driver education courses must acquaint each

student with the hazards posed by motor vehicles to vulnerable highway users and

provide at least 30 minutes of instruction in safely dealing with these hazards.

Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime,

the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a

report concerning the proposed penalty and the costs or savings that are likely to

result if the bill is enacted.

 

For further information see the state and local fiscal estimate, which will be

printed as an appendix to this bill.

 

Wyoming

 

 

 

Resources

 

Resource
American League of Bicyclist’s Bike University
2011 Overvie6w Article: April 18, 2011 by akpedbikeallianceWhile there hasn’t been a vulnerable roadway user bill introduced in Alaska yet, the concept is gaining momentum nationwide.Three states already have vulnerable user laws on the books (Oregon’s took effect in 2008, and Delaware’s and New York’s took effect this year), and more states are introducing the bills. Vulnerable roadway user bills mandate stiff fines, loss of license and/or other penalties when the driver of a motorized vehicle severely injures or kills a pedestrian, bicyclist, wheelchair user, motorcyclist or construction worker.

On Monday, April 18, Washington’s State Senate voted 44-2 to accept House amendments to SB 5326, its version of a vulnerable user bill that now goes to Gov. Christine Gregoire for her signature. Cycling and walking advocates in Washington have been trying to pass a vulnerable user bill for three years, but the bill usually ended up dying in committee. This year the Senate and House both passed their own versions of the bill by large margins, then the Senate bill crossed over to receive House approval (with amendments) and now can go to the governor.

“The real crux of this bill is that outcomes matter,” David Hiller of the Cascade Bicycle Club told the Sammamish Patch website. “A DUI with a death is not a DUI with a tragic outcome; it’s vehicular manslaughter. If you have an unsecured load in your vehicle, it’s simply an infraction; but if you kill someone, it’s a felony.”

Image from sharethedamnroad.com/

Possible fines would range from $1,000 to $5,000, and drivers charged under the bill would lose their licenses for 90 days. A driver could reduce the fine to $250 by showing up in court, completing a traffic safety course, and doing 100 hours of community service.

“It will hopefully encourage people to behave more responsibly around populations that are defined as vulnerable,” Hiller told Sammamish Patch, although “we’ll have to watch it closely to see if it has its desired effect.”

New Mexico also had a vulnerable user bill moving through its state legislature, and HB 68 even passed unanimously in the House (68-0). Unfortunately the bill died in a Senate committee and won’t make it to the governor’s desk this year. Even if a bill passes, New Mexico bike/pedestrian advocates worry about a possible veto from Gov. Susana Martinez, who already vetoed SB 124, a bill that would have given New Mexico the nation’s first statewide five-foot passing law (Albuquerque and Los Alamos have local five-foot passing laws) that passed the House and Senate with relative ease.

According to the League of American Bicyclists blog, on April 11 the Maryland State Senate passed HB 363, which creates a new misdemeanor level offense: vehicular negligent homicide. This closes a loophole that had let negligent drivers off with mere traffic fines for killing other road users, while still allowing for felony level charges to be brought in instances of gross negligence such as  drunk driving. Guilty drivers will face up to 3 years in jail and up to a $5,000 fine. According to the Baltimore Sun, the House accepted the one Senate amendment to the bill and it has been sent to the governor to be signed.

Vulnerable user bills with varying language also were introduced in the Rhode Island, Connecticut, Nevada, Michigan, Massachusetts and other states. In other states, such as Florida, recent fatal “accidents” involving cars/trucks and cyclists/pedestrians have led to a demand for vulnerable user bills. In February, Dan DeWitt of the St. Petersburg Times wrote this column promoting a vulnerable user law for Florida in response to a recent series of fatal wrecks in the Tampa area (at least 15 cyclists killed since mid-2010). A similar series of deaths in Wisconsin during 2010 prompted Tom Held of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to write this appeal for a Wisconsin vulnerable user bill on Sunday.

In 2009, the Texas Legislature overwhelmingly passed a vulnerable user bill (25-5 in the Senate, 140-5 in the House), but Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it after the legislative session ended and the legislature wasn’t able to get back together to override the veto. Now, several Texas communities are bypassing Perry’s veto by passing localized vulnerable user laws. Earlier this month, Denton became the eighth Texas community to pass a local vulnerable user law.

For those wanting to learn more about vulnerable user laws, Ray Thomas of the Portland law firm, Swanson, Thomas and Coon, played a large role in crafting Oregon’s bill, which has become the model for many states. Thomas’ law firm’s website has a page devoted to vulnerable user laws and also posted a YouTube video. There have been similar laws on the books in many European countries.

One reason for vulnerable user laws is recent research shows the vast majority of car-bicycle wrecks occur at the fault of the driver, not the cyclist (at fault fewer than 10 percent of the time in one study by Charles Komanoff and the Right of Way organization of New York). Cyclists, pedestrians and others are the most vulnerable because there is no protective metal shell around them like there is in a car.

 

Arizona Bike Blog

Vulnerable Legislation

 

What is a ‘Vulnerable Roadway User’ Law?

The general idea is to create a subset of road users who are somehow more vulnerable than those inside of enclosed motor vehicle; this usually would include pedestrians and bicyclists, and might include motorcyclists, animal riders, animal drawn conveyances, and so forth. If someone in this subset is harmed by the negligent actions of a motorist, then that motorist is subject to enhanced penalties.

This page from the Cascade Bike Club (the state of Washington) describes it pretty well. The idea of making it a legislative priority is pretty popular. E.g.: Virgina Bicycling Federation. LACBC (California). Illinois. New York. Rhode Island. So it is a bit of a trend — and much like the Safe Passing Distance Laws were/are a trend, there isn’t any evidence one way or another that show these laws are effective.

Oregon 2007

Oregon has had a vulnerable road user law since 2007 (effective date Jan 1,2008) — making it the first such law in the US. Bike lawyer Ray Thomas [youtube about the law] was instrumental in passage. He offers interesting and useful political legislative considerations here. Oregon’s enhance penalties are non-criminal, and involve various trade offs between a fine, license suspension, or community service. The penalty is keyed to the commission of a careless driving offense that results in a serious injury or death.

To see the actual language of the law: look up HB 3314 from the 2007 Regular Session at www.leg.state.or.us. It adds a new section to Oregon’s existing careless driving law, ORS 811.135

What have been the results? It’s way to early to tell anything with crash stats (I originally wrote this article several years ago; perhaps in 2010?) — it ultimately might be impossible to discern. But one does wonder what became of prosecutions under this law?? There were, for example, 104 traffic deaths of bicyclist and ped in 2008 and 2009, the last full year of NHTSA stats available. (51+35 peds, 10+8 cyclists, 2008 and 2009 respectively). And there must have been at least several hundred of serious injuries. What became of these cases? How many vulnerable users’ prosecutions; any license suspensions, etc? I can’t find any outcomes.

As I am updating this now in late 2013, Oregon’s law has been on the books for just shy of six years; I have yet to see more than a tiny handful of mentions of this law (here is one involving a bicyclist hit by a garbage truck; I can’t even find the outcome, the article just says the driver will be charged). There have been now at least many hundreds (more reasonably a couple of thousand — it is some fraction of fatal or seriously injured bicyclist or pedestrian) of potential cases; where are the charges? (that fraction tends to hover around 50%).

Washington 2011

Legislative effort in state of WA passed a vulnerable user’s law in the spring 2011 (but doesn’t become effective until June 1, 2012). As of March, a similar bill had passed both houses. See kiptasun article, which also has lots of links. HB1339 passed March 2, 2011; and SB5326 passed the week before. The bill is being pushed by the widow of bicyclist James “Mike” McClurkan. Here is a good graphic representation of “how a bill becomes law” in WA (but is very similar everywhere); Several articles from the Cascade Bicycle Club have lots of rich detail.

The law was signed by the governor May 16, 2011. To see the actual law; follow the link above to the senate bill SB5326, and in there there is a link to Session Laws: Chapter 372, 2011.

The Texas Experience 2005-2009

San Antonio Metro Columnist Veronica Flores writes of political problems with such legislation: “For eight years, bicycling advocates worked to get such legislation passed, changing the proposal as necessary to gain widespread support… In vetoing the bill, Perry cited penalties that he said already exist when a motorist is at fault for causing a collision, “whether it is against a ‘vulnerable user’ or not.”

But here is some more detail on the actual sausage-making process… Saying that the proposal was changed as necessary to gain widespread support is a nice way to put it. NTVC (North Texas Vehicular Cyclist) puts it more bluntly “Bills introduced this session sought to include various pedestrian groups among legitimate road users in an effort to garner support among otherwise indifferent legislators” — in other words, a little horse trading that would, in NTVC’s view, would water-down cyclist’s rights.

In more recent news, the CITY of El Paso pass their own version, Ordinance number 017466.

New York 2010

New York state recently got two new laws, the first dubbed Hayley and Diego’s Law (A0791) is a vulnerable user’s law. The second, Elle’s law (A10617), stiffens penalties including mandatory license suspension for any motor vehicle driver who KSIs (kills or seriously injures) anyone. More at streetsblog.org.

The LAB weighs in (early 2013 timeframe)

LAB weighs in in support of VRU (Vulnerable Roadway User) laws. blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2013/03/bike-law-university-vulnerable-road-user-laws-2/

Why I do not support Vulnerable User Legislation

As an aside –  I don’t really see it happening in our current political climate.

The foundation for the supposed need seems to be based on a false premise. That being that when cyclists (or peds) are killed, the justice system has some sort of bias that prevents the responsible party from being appropriately punished.

This has not been my experience; at least in the cases of cyclist fatalities. That is to say, a negligent motorist who kills a cyclist is treated the same as a negligent motorist who kills another motorist.

The general rule involves whether or not the negligent driver is impaired: impaired = criminal charges; not impaired means no criminal charges. It is independent of the mode of transportation of the victim.

And in flagrant cases, charges are brought against reckless drivers who cause fatalities. See e.g. the driver who killed Drake Okusako, who was charged with manslaughter. Or the driver who killed Wamsley (I don’t have a link; he was convicted of either manslaughter or neg hom).

What should be done

I support any sort of stiffening of penalties for negligent drivers who kill / injure anyone. Arizona is one of the few states that does not have a vehicular homicide law (more here), so perhaps that would be helpful. The general idea is that a special/another type of homicide is created; generally with relatively minor criminal penalties. So it would be similar to negligent homicide, a class 4 felony; but with a different standard of conduct. Neg Hom requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant was “criminally negligent”.

More tangibly — Arizona already has a criminal misdemeanor law 28-672. Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation. There are only two problems with it, 1) getting (in this case typically city) prosecutors to use it — but that would be the same problem with a new VUL law, and 2) the law itself has a discrete list of infractions.  The answer is to simply do away with the list of infractions and make it any moving violation. It would also be good to open up the ranges for the amount of time driver’s licenses get suspended — shamefully, the law has no mandatory minimum suspension period. This law has been tweaked several times in recent past, so there is at least some hope it could be tweaked again.

 

Here are some thought from cyclist mighkwilson.com (and here too) regarding vulnerable user legislation generally.

some context: Bicyclist’s trip represent about 2% of traffic (citation?); In Arizona there were 106,767 crashes between all types of traffic in 2009, of those 1,995 were bicylist crashes, representing 1.95% of all crashes. Source:  Motor Vehicle Crash Facts for the state of Arizona (ADOT)

….

 

Bob Mionske 2010 Article in Bicycling Magazine http://blogs.bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2010/02/01/traffic-injustice-part-ii/
Miller Blog http://blog.livablestreets.info/?p=686
NJBikePed Org http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3-Foot-Final-Report-Draft_V7.pdf More of a focus on 3 foot law, but discussion of vulnerable user laws and efforts included.

 

 

 

 

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>