Ann Arbor safe passing ordinance

[petehouk]

Dear WBWC members and friends:

On December 5th, Ann Arbor's city council will vote on an ordinance requiring motorists to give at least 5 feet of clearance when passing pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair users.  This is a great opportunity for Ann Arbor to lead in improving conditions for non-motorized roadway users!

Here's what you can do to support a safe passing ordinance:

--Have a look at the proposed ordinance (link below) and share your opinion here

--Send an email to your council member and let them know that a safe passing ordinance is important to you

--Go to the council meeting on December 5th to show your support.  There will be a public hearing on the ordinance and you can share your opinion.  Even if you don't speak at the hearing your presence will send a message!

I'm looking forward to seeing many of you at the meeting on the 5th!

Thanks

Peter Houk

Ann Arbor's proposed ordinance:

http://a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2881465&GUID=B34589C6-12D2-465A-A903-9B95BFF03C65

City council email addresses:

http://www.a2gov.org/departments/city-council/Pages/Home.aspx

Grand Rapids' ordinance (already passed):

https://www.municode.com/library/mi/grand_rapids/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITX--TRAFFIC_CH181GETRRE_ART2OP_S10.25PALAMO

Info on the safe passing bill that passed the state senate this year:

http://www.lmb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1005:the-senate-voted-but-the-fight-is-not-over&catid=96&Itemid=94

[Peter Batra]

Hi-

I am a year round cyclist (and daily bike commuter) in Ann Arbor.

I don't see anything in the new ordinance that addresses existing bike lanes on roads (eg. Packard) where there is not already 5 feet of space between cyclists riding within the cycle lane and cars travelling in their lane.

Does this mean that motorists will need to cross the double yellow line when passing a cyclist since on most AA roads with bike lanes there will not be 5 feet of distance when both bikes and cars are travelling in the middle of their respective lanes? 

I'm not convinced that this legislation has much merit. If motorists on downtown Ann Arbor streets need to give 5 feet of distance, then this will annoy drivers behind them (when they can't pass) or motorists travelling in the opposite direction when the on-coming car crosses the center line to pass a cyclist.

Am I missing something here?

Pete

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, all views expressed in this group are not the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Victoria Green]

Hi, folks.  Like Pete, I'm a year-round commuter, and I share some of his concerns.  Is there any case where a 5-foot passing ordinance has been passed that includes a dense urban environment?  In that case, whats happened in environments like Packard (or Main, or State) where there just isn't 5 feet of room?  And what about when it's the *biker* passing the cars -- I have certainly biked down State Street passing stalled traffic with less than 5 feet of passing room.  Would the biker be ticketed if this ordinance passes?

Am I crazy to worry that a 5-foot passing ordnance might result in banning bikes from some streets altogether?

Regards,

Victoria Green (Hi, Pete.  I'm Cort's mother.)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[Kevin McGuinness]

If they can not pass safely giving 5 feet -- DON't pass.  Drivers have to get over the feeling they have to get everywhere as fast as they can.  Slow down, enjoy life, be considerate.  

--

Regards,

Kevin 734-761-9894

[Briere, Sabra]

Kalamazoo.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2016/09/vehicles_must_remain_5-feet_aw.html

Grand Rapids.

http://michiganradio.org/post/grand-rapids-drivers-must-give-bikes-more-room-under-new-safe-passing-lawhttp://michiganradio.org/post/grand-rapids-drivers-must-give-bikes-more-room-under-new-safe-passing-law

I cannot find that the State passed the law, although the Senate did on September 20th.

Sabra Briere

First Ward City Council member

Ann Arbor, MI

(734)277-6578 (cell)

(734)995-3518

Emails sent and received by me as a Council member regarding Ann Arbor City matters are generally subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

---

From: wb...@googlegroups.com [wb...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Victoria Green [v...@umich.edu]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition
Subject: Re: [WBWC] Ann Arbor safe passing ordinance

[Peter Houk]

I agree with Kevin--if you can't pass safely, don't pass.  Wait until it is safe.  This ordinance will empower well-behaved drivers to continue to be patient and safe, regardless of how impatient the driver behind them is being.  It also gives the police an enforcement tool to address those impatient and ill-behaved drivers who would pass without enough room.    

Michigan's safe passing law has been passed by the senate but not the house.  This would be a good time to write your state representative and senator and let them know that you think a statewide safe passing law should be a high priority.  But until we get a state law, I am thankful that Ann Arbor's council is taking the lead on this issue.  

Find your representative here:

http://house.michigan.gov/mhrpublic/

Find your senator here:

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysbyaddress.html

Kalamazoo.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, all views expressed in this group are not the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Peter Houk]

See below for a comment from Dave Askins, who agreed to let me share this with the group since he is having technology problems that prevent him from posting it himself. 

Dave Askins	11:12 AM (31 minutes ago)
to me, pbatra01, vkg, kmcguinn, Sabra, Chuck, Chip

[Technology note: I'm sending this to directly to those folks who have responded to the WBWC group thread so far, because while I am apparently on the recipient list, I am not able to post directly to the WBWC group. I don't have energy to sort that tech issue right now.]

First, I'm a little surprised that the WBWC is only just now circulating information about this possible new ordinance, and is presenting the ordinance in completely uncritical fashion. Every ordinance will have weaknesses, and I think it's important that CMs (and in this case also the WBWC) identify and say out loud what they think those weaknesses are and make some kind of argument that the strengths are more important that the weaknesses.

Among the weaknesses of this proposal that I can identify:

a. New impact. I don't think the parts of the ordinance that regulate car-bicycle interactions describe any situations that are not already a violations of Michigan Vehicle Code Sec. 634–636 (which regulates safe passing of one vehicle by another, which includes bicycles). Maybe there are? If so, what are they?

b. Jurisdiction. A revision to Michigan Vehicle Code that explicitly covers car-bicycle interactions would make the city's ordinance completely moot, wouldn't it? I think this is a matter that would benefit from referred to the new Policy Agenda Committee of the City Council or the new City Transportation Commission.

c. Penalty. From City Staff: "Under Code Section 10:156(2), a violation of the ordinance amendment would be a civil infraction subject to a $100.00 fine plus costs. There is currently no plan for enforcement. ... A violation of the ordinance amendment would not go on a person’s driving record, which also means that no points would be assessed. "  To me, this sounds completely toothless. (Where did this piece of staff writing come from? See below.)

d. Enforcement. There's no current plan for enforcement. But could there even _be_ a plan to systematically enforce this ordinance? Otherwise put, is it even possible to systematically enforce this ordinance in a targeted way? (It's not tied to any tightly defined geographic area, like, e.g., the crosswalk ordinance.) 

e. Bicycle-pedestrian interactions. The way the ordinance is written, the two sections meant to protect wheelchair users and pedestrians give _bicyclists_ as vehicles a literal free pass. Why aren't bicyclists subject to the safe passing distance for peds and wheelchair users?

Below I have pasted two longish chunks of text.

1. The first is an excerpt from the City's Council's Nov. 28, 2016 agenda response memo with answers to questions about the safe passing ordinance. 

The Agenda Response Memo is a kind of document that is routinely attached to Legistar on the day of City Council meetings in response to questions that CMs have posed to staff. So one positive path to civic engagement is for residents who have more expertise than CMs on a topic to send in questions to CMs, who might then forward the questions to staff, resulting in publicly available answers to pertinent questions. Link to complete Agenda Response Memo from Nov. 28, 2016: http://a2gov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2891610&GUID=CF0C08E7-E5D7-4014-8B05-BA432771E829&Options=&Search=

I'd encourage folks to send CMs answerable questions that would help the public's understanding of this proposed legislation. It's somewhat of a long shot at this point, but it's possible that they might be forwarded and answered in time for inclusion on the Dec. 5 Agenda Response Memo.

2. The second chunk of text below is a message that I sent to the Council on Nov. 21. 

I hope that the WBWC membership will sift through the significant amount of information available on this topic before concluding it's something that the WBWC as an entity should rally around. It might well be--but from my vantage point, not a lot of really careful consideration has gone into this...yet.

Cheers,

Dave

*****START AGENDA RESPONSE MEMO NOV. 28*****

C-1 - An Ordinance to Amend the Code of the City of Ann Arbor by Adding a New Section Which New Section Shall Be Designated as Section 10:18 of Chapter 126, Traffic, Title X, of Said Code

Question: How does the proposed Safe Passing Ordinance fit into staff's plans for a Vulnerable Road Users' Ordinance? (Councilmember Grand)

Response: The ordinance amendment is a type of "vulnerable road users' ordinance," but instead of using that term specifies three types of road users that would fit the term: bicyclists, pedestrians, and wheelchair users.

Question: The phrase “if conditions allow” is vague. Can you please clarify what that phrase actually means in practice and how it will be interpreted by those charged with enforcement? For example, in a situation where a vehicle was passing a cyclist, pedestrian or person in a wheelchair, would the vehicle wanting to pass be expected to cross a center line of a two lane road or cross the lane line of a four lane road if the driver did not see any oncoming traffic (on the 2 lane road) or parallel, adjacent traffic (on the four lane road) in order to maintain the five-foot separation? (Councilmember Lumm)

Response: The phrase, “if conditions allow” refers to when it is not possible or prudent due to weather, road conditions, or the immediate presence of additional traffic. The specifics of each situation would need to be judged by the officer at the time of the incident.

Question: If a driver is unsure if conditions allow passing and providing the 5-foot separation, is the expectation the driver would not pass (and slow to the speed of the cyclist, pedestrian or person in wheelchair) or could pass, but with less than 5-foot separation because “conditions did not allow” maintaining the separation? (Councilmember Lumm)

Response: The specifics of each situation would need to be judged by the officer at the time of the incident.

Question: Section 3 of the proposed ordinance says the ordinance takes effect immediately (10 days after passage to be exact). Does that mean there is no plan for community education or outreach of this new ordinance? (Councilmember Lumm)

Response: The effective date of the ordinance can be extended as desired. Ten days after passage is the minimum.

If City Council desires outreach before implementation, a delayed effective date would be appropriate. If the ordinance is adopted, staff would prepare a complementary outreach program. As there is only a limited amount of funding for this type of outreach and education, the approaches would likely include the City’s free media channels, web- based outreach and development and distribution of informational materials. Although specific information has not been developed, it would be anticipated that flyers, brochures and posters with appropriate messaging would be utilized, as funding allows. Staff would coordinate outreach with AAATA, the DDA, AAPS and UM for displaying information on public transit buses, in parking structures and other locations. A six-month delay would make the ordinance effective in June.

Question: Is staff aware of other municipalities in Michigan or other states that have a similar ordinance? (Councilmember Lumm)

Response: Research by the City Attorney’s Office has found the following:

The only Michigan municipality that we found has a similar ordinance is Grand Rapids, which provides: “The driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall allow the bicyclist at least a five-foot separation between the right side of the driver's vehicle, including all mirrors or other projections, and the left side of the bicyclist at all times.”

Some Texas cities (Denton, Austin, San Marcos, El Paso, possibly others) have ordinances for passing “vulnerable road users,” which includes, but is not limited to, bicyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users. The safe passing distances in these ordinances are 3-feet for passenger cars and 6 feet for large trucks.

According to an article found on-line, as of December 2015, 26 state legislatures have enacted 3-foot passing laws and 1 state has a 2 foot or 4 foot passing requirement depending on the type of road. See National Conference of State Legislatures, Safely Passing Bicyclists Chart (2016)( http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/safely- passing-bicyclists.aspx).

Question: In the proposed new section 10:18, there is no reference to, or language on, the penalty for violation. What type of infraction would this be, what would the fine be for violation, and what is the plan for enforcement? (Councilmember Lumm)

Response: Under Code Section 10:156(2), a violation of the ordinance amendment would be a civil infraction subject to a $100.00 fine plus costs.

There is currently no plan for enforcement. The best method of leveraging the ordinance to enhance the safety of the public will be evaluated after being passed and the language is finalized. The proactive enforcement of the ordinance would be determined based on total workload of the officers and will likely vary. It is anticipated that both proactive and incidental reactive enforcement will occur, however.

Question: Also, would this be the type of moving infraction where a motorist would get points, and if so, how would that work? (Councilmember Lumm)

Response: A violation of the ordinance amendment would not go on a person’s driving record, which also means that no points would be assessed. 

*****END AGENDA RESPONSE MEMO NOV. 28*****

*****START DAVE ASKINS EMAIL SENT NOV. 21 BEFORE FIRST READING*****

Councilmembers,

I'm writing regarding the first reading of the "safe passing" ordinance that appears on tonight's (11/21/2016) agenda, which is intended to ensure that motorists allow a safe distance when passing bicyclists and other vulnerable road users.

As many of you know, I live in a car-less household, and get around by foot, by bus, or (in most cases) by bicycle. So I should be an easy sell for this proposed ordinance.

But I am not (yet) sold on it.

That's because the memo accompanying the proposed ordinance answers none of the questions that I think naturally arise about the proposed legislation. Now, one common response I've heard historically to complaints about insufficient information provided with proposed ordinances goes along the following lines: "Oh, it's just first reading and there'll be time to provide more information and answer questions by the time the second reading comes up." 

But I think the public interest is better served if easily anticipated questions can be answered already in in conjunction with the first reading presentation. First, it would make for a richer and deeper subsequent community conversation. And it would demonstrate clearly to the public that staff and sponsoring Councilmembers had invested significant work (as I believe is surely the case for the "safe passing" ordinance) in crafting an ordinance that serves the public's needs.

Among the fairly obvious issues that I think deserve to be addressed in the initial presentation of an ordinance like this one are these five:

1. Safe distance defined. Oregon's state law regulating passing interactions between motor vehicles and bicycles, defines the safe distance not in terms of a number of feet (which some other states define as 3 feet), but rather in terms of the distance "that is sufficient to prevent contact with the person operating the bicycle if the person were to fall into the driver’s lane of traffic." 

QUESTION: Why does Ann Arbor's proposed ordinance specify a number of feet, instead of a "tipping distance" type requirement?

QUESTION: Why does Ann Arbor's proposed ordinance specify five feet, as opposed to, say, three feet?

2. General "safe passing" law versus a specific one. Michigan Vehicle Code Sec. 634–636 already regulates safe passing of one vehicle by another, which I believe already applies to a scenario where a motor vehicle passes a bicycle (because bicycles are vehicles). 

QUESTION: What are the specific scenarios that are not already covered by the Michigan Vehicle Code but _would be_ covered by the proposed ordinance?

3. Enforcement. Ann Arbor's controversial crosswalk law (when first altered back in 2007 or 2008) might be fairly analyzed as a policy choice between (a) allocating resources and giving direction to the city administrator to enforce more rigorously and systematically the existing crosswalk law; and (b) allocating resources and giving direction for enforcement of an amended law. 

QUESTION: In any case, to achieve an actual real world impact, aren't additional enforcement resources required--whether those resources are put towards enforcing an existing law or a new law? At what level is the Council willing to fund those resources?

QUESTION: Does the City anticipate posting signage along heavily bicycled routes (along the lines of "Share the Road") alerting motorists to the new "safe passing" ordinance? If so, what is the estimated cost?

QUESTION: Does the City anticipate a public outreach campaign alerting the public to the existence of the new ordinance?

QUESTION: How is the experience of riding a bicycle around Ann Arbor expected to change as a result of the enactment of this ordinance? How does the City plan to measure that impact?

4. Local versus state. The disclaimer included in the ordinance about enforceability hints at a certain lack of confidence that this local ordinance could be enforced. 

QUESTION: On what legal basis can the City of Ann Arbor enact a traffic regulation not included in the Michigan Vehicle Code? 

QUESTION: What efforts have been made to recruit support from representatives to the state legislature to enact a "safe passing" ordinance for bicycles as a part of the Michigan Vehicle Code?

5. Exclusions. Oregon's state law on "safe passing" for bicycles includes an exclusion for roadways with posted speed limits less than 35mph. That provision was apparently intended to allow for public transit buses to operate at very low speeds in dense downtown traffic, in closer proximity to bicyclists than would otherwise be allowed by the "safe passing" law.

QUESTION: Why does Ann Arbor's proposed ordinance not include a speed limit exclusion?

I hope that information that addresses these issues can be attached to the Legistar item as soon as possible. 

Cheers,

Dave

[Bruce Geffen]

I can't believe WBWC is having this discussion.  Support and Pass the 5' ordinance.  I commute year round both on bike and foot (at times).  Motorized vehicles need to slow down and follow the ordinances, just as cyclists need to follow the rules of the road as well.  It's an overall safety issue here.  Cars and trucks will be able to maneuver safely around a cyclist with the 5' ordinance.  

Bruce Geffen

[Ken Clark]

Very late to the (abbreviated?) discussion about this, but I thought I'd note that this is already the law for the drivers of trucks (buses, ambulances, etc).  It's a little obscure, but the Stockfish vs. Fox Michigan Supreme Court ruling from 1936 makes it illegal for trucks to pass cyclists at 4' or less unless they're (the truck) traveling at less than 25mph.  This ruling used to be available on the WBWC website, but it's not there any more.  Anyone want a copy to put back?

I'll add a few notes:

- The ruling applies to trucks, but it's not clear whether that includes light trucks.  Presumably it does, which means it includes pickup trucks, buses, commercial trucks, etc.

- The ruling was that it's unsafe to pass at 4' or less, and since the state law requires passing at a safe distance, that makes it illegal.

- People need to remember that bike lanes are a bit of a legal fiction.  That is, they are a part of the roadway that motorists can't use.  They're also a part of the roadway that cyclists can use, and since we need to keep right, that puts us in the bike lane.

- The bike lane really has no bearing whatsoever on this ruling.  As in, bike lane or not, truck drivers have to pass at more than 4' (unless they're traveling under 25mph.)

- The logic used in the ruling pretty much applies the same to any motor vehicle.  Two teens were biking on the right-hand side of the roadway (one was on the handlebars, which people used to do, and the Court said that didn't make any difference to the case.)  A truck pulling a trailer came up behind them, giving them about 4' of clearance.  The cyclist seemed to realize a truck was coming up behind them, and tried to move farther right.  They went off the edge, tried to correct, and ended up swerving in front of the truck (have to wonder if the Dexter Rd crash was anything like that).  The truck driver had assumed they were far enough over, hit the brakes, but the teens were killed.  The family claimed the truck driver was negligent.  The case made it up to the Supreme Court, where the justices agreed with the family. 

I think of this ordinance as trying to get the motorists who pass at 2' to knock it off.  I can't imagine a police officer (in Ann Arbor, where they won't ticket motorists plain-as-day driving in the bike lane) writing a ticket for someone passing at four feet or more, which should be pretty typical when the cyclist is in the bike lane and the motorist is in the middle of the next lane over. 

I'd be happier with a state law that makes it 5' for trucks (including pickups & SUVs), and 4' otherwise, but until that I certainly don't see anything wrong with municipalities adopting ordinances like that, and I do think it would help.  I don't think it's necessary for most drivers of smaller cars to pass at 5', but OTOH, it's easier for them, (since most cars are narrower than the average truck), and I like the simplicity of one rule.

As for going over the double yellow, I do that by a foot or two as needed to pass a cyclist, and it's never a problem.  If there's on-coming traffic, I just slow until I can get over, or move over early to make it clear what I'm doing, and traffic coming the other way adjusts.  The bigger problem is on the multi-lane roads like Plymouth, Beakes, Fifth, etc.  There I just move out of the bike lane if a truck isn't moving over at all.  They're not often happy about it, but they move over.  Typically, the biggest problem is the AAATA bus drivers who are driving *IN* the bike lane, and are peeved that they have to get over at all when any moron can see that they're going to be passing way too closely (and AAATA is aware of Stockfish vs. Fox). 

Ken Clark