The city of Washington, DC has proposed changes to its bicycle regulations, and I'm interested in any comments from forum members. Here is the proposal:
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
The Director of the District Department of Transportation, pursuant to the
authority of Sections 3(b) and 6(c) of the Department of Transportation
Establishment Act of 2002, effective May 21, 2002 (D.C. Law 14-137; D.C.
Official Code § § 50-021.02(b) and 50-921.05(c)); and Mayor's Order 2003-11
(January 16, 2003), hereby gives notice of the intent to amend Chapter 12,
"Bicycles, Motorized Bicycles, and Miscellaneous Vehicles," and Chapter 26,
"Civil Fines for Moving and Non-Moving Infractions," of the Vehicles and
Traffic Regulations (18 DCMR). The proposed amendments to Chapter 12 will
update bicycle safety equipment guidelines in § 1204; eliminate the
approval and sale of bicycle safety equipment in § 1205; enhance the
authority of the Department to place bicycle racks in the public
right-of-way in § 1208; and set forth a process for removing abandoned
bicycles from the public space in § 1210. The proposed amendments to
Chapter 26 will increase the civil fines for bicycle infractions that do not
involve bicycle registration to twenty-five dollars ($ 25.00). Final
rulemaking action to adopt these amendments shall be taken in not less than
thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice in the D.C.
Register.
Title 18 DCMR, Chapter 12 is amended to read as follows:
A. Subsections 1204.1 through 1204.4 are amended to read as follows:
1204.1 Each bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which enables the
operator to cause the braked wheels to skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
Fixed gear bicycles are not required to have a separate brake, but the
operator shall be able to stop the bicycle using the pedals and cause the
wheels to skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
1204.2 Each bicycle, when in use at night, shall be equipped with a
lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of
at least five hundred feet (500 ft.) to the front and with a red or amber
reflector on the rear which shall be visible from all distances from fifty
feet (50 ft.) to three hundred feet (300 ft.) to the rear when directly in
front of upper beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle.
1204.3 A lamp emitting a red or amber light visible from a distance
of five hundred feet (500 ft.) to the rear may be used in lieu of the red or
amber reflector.
1204.4 In place of the requirements of § 1204.2, a lamp may be worn
on the body of an operator; provided, that it may be readily seen from the
distances set forth in that subsection.
B. Section 1205, APPROVAL AND SALE OF BICYCLE SAFETY EQUIPMENT, is deleted
in its entirety.
C. Subsection 1208.2 is amended to read as follows: [*2812]
1208.2 An application for a bicycle rack permit shall be signed by
the owner of the abutting property and filed with the Mayor. This subsection
shall not apply to permits obtained by the Mayor.
D. Section 1210 is amended to read as follows:
1210 REMOVAL OF BICYCLES FROM PUBLIC SPACE
1210.1 Any bicycle left unused in public space for more than thirty
(30) days shall be considered abandoned. The Director may remove an
abandoned bicycle after placing notice on the bicycle for a period of at
least ten (10) days. The Director shall attempt to identify and contact the
owner of a registered bicycle prior to removing it from public space.
1210.2 Bicycles removed from public space that are in working order
may be auctioned off to the highest bidder or given free-of-charge to minors
as part of a bicycle recreation, safety, or responsibility program. Bicycles
that are not in working order may be disposed of as solid waste.
E. Subsections 1210.3 and 1210.4 are deleted in their entirety.
Title 18 DCMR, Chapter 26, Section 2602, BICYCLE INFRACTIONS, is amended to
read as follows:
2602.1 The following civil infractions and their respective fines
set forth in this section refer to bicycles and the operation of bicycles.
The fine for any bicycle violation not listed in this section is twenty-five
dollars ($ 25.00).
INFRACTION (DCMR Citation) FINE
Carrying objects which prevent operator from keeping one hand on $
25.00
handle bars (§ 1201.6)
Excessive number of riders (§ 1201.5) $ 25.00
Failure to register bicycle (§ 1202.1) $ 5.00
Furnishing false information (§ 1202.8) $ 5.00
Hazardous driving (§ 1201.2) $ 25.00
Hitching on vehicle (§ 1201.16) $ 25.00
Impeding or obstructing traffic (§ 1201.3) $ 25.00
Improper equipment (§ 1204) $ 25.00
Improper Securing of Bicycle (§ 1209) $ 25.00
Mounting rack violation (§ 1206) $ 25.00
Not riding on seat (§ 1201.4) $ 25.00
Operating an unregistered bicycle (§ 1201.2) $ 5.00
Removing registration plate or number (§ 1202.1) $ 5.00
Renting an unregistered bicycle (§ 1207.7) $ 5.00
Riding on sidewalk where not permitted (§ 1201.9) $ 25.00
Right-of-way, failure to yield (§ 1201.10ff) $ 25.00
Sounding of warning device (§ § 1201.14; 1204.7) $ 25.00
Speed, excessive (§ 1201.8) $ 25.00
Traffic control device, disobeying (§ 1201.15) $ 25.00
[*2813]
All persons interested in commenting on the subject matter of this proposed
rulemaking action may file comments, in writing, with: Jim Sebastian,
District Department of Transportation, Transportation Policy and Planning
Administration, 2000 14th Street, NW, 7th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20009.
Comments must be received no later than thirty (30) days after the date of
publication of this notice in the D.C. Register. Copies of this proposal may
be obtained, at cost, by writing to the above address.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-21-05, 02:38 PM
The city of Washington, DC has proposed changes to its bicycle regulations, and I'm interested in any comments from forum members. Here is the proposal:
Improper equipment (§ 1204) $ 25.00
Improper Securing of Bicycle (§ 1209) $ 25.00
Mounting rack violation (§ 1206) $ 25.00
Not riding on seat (§ 1201.4) $ 25.00
Operating an unregistered bicycle (§ 1201.2) $ 5.00
Any clarification available for the first four? How does this last requirement apply to non-residents and/or tourists?
jagged
04-21-05, 02:57 PM
It's always tough to read stuff "as amended," because it's hard to know what they changed. For reference, the current regulations are at http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/dclaw.htm . I think the bit about taking away abandoned bikes is new; I hope they actually go for it. Also, they are getting rid of bizarre regulations that involved the city formally "approving" designs of bike safety lights. Overall, these changes seem unobjectionable.
Like-To-Bike: DC requires that bicycles either be registered in DC, or in the jurisdiction where the bike's owner resides.
markhr
04-21-05, 03:04 PM
While I'm not from DC it does seem that on the whole they're trying to help but...
I'm not sure of current bike light wattage/lumens but how did they arrive at that distance and are current bike lights able to comply. Yes, they can be seen on their own but with a car's headlights directly behind the bike?
1204.2 Each bicycle, when in use at night, shall be equipped with a
lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of
at least five hundred feet (500 ft.) to the front and with a red or amber
reflector on the rear which shall be visible from all distances from fifty
feet (50 ft.) to three hundred feet (300 ft.) to the rear when directly in
front of upper beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle.
These fines are generally ok except for these which seem fairly random and badly thought out especially things like mounting rack, not riding on seat, riding abreast(2 abreast is legal in most other parts), sounding of warning device, speed excessive (on a bicycle??) and any other infraction(so anything we do is worth a $25.00 fine?)
2602.1 The fine for any bicycle violation not listed in this section is twenty-five
dollars ($ 25.00).
Sounding of warning device (§ § 1201.14; 1204.7) $ 25.00
Speed, excessive (§ 1201.8) $ 25.00
Marylandnewbie
04-21-05, 05:41 PM
Overall these changes seem pretty reasonable. The bike removal rules are good and may help clean up a few places. Getting the city out of approving devices seems like a good idea and the lighting requirements seem reasonable (although they probably exceed the cheapest lights). Its nice to see them streamline the bike rack policy since DPW has been pushing new initiatives to get more property owners to install racks. Its good when the law catches up with the PR. As we know, it is not so important what laws DC has on the books as which ones they choose to enforce and how frequently.
Laika
04-21-05, 07:31 PM
The 2 abreast and mandatory registration seem like bunk. The rest seems ok.
DCCommuter
04-21-05, 08:27 PM
Riding abreast is actually legal in DC. The applicable statute is 1201.7, which says "No person shall ride a bicycle abreast of another bicycle unless to do so does not endanger himself or others." So it's only illegal if it creates a dangerous situation. Inconvenience is not the same as endanger. The wording of this proposal concerns me that it's a backdoor attempt to ban riding abreast.
The current regs are at http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/lib/ddot/information/bicycle/regulations34.pdf
WABA, the Washington Area Bicyclists Association, is lobbying to get the registration requirement lifted. Although I kind of like it. It comes in handy when some anti-bike bigot starts on a rant about how bikes shouldn't be on the road because they're not required to be registered. Well, they are.
LittleBigMan
04-21-05, 10:24 PM
INFRACTION (DCMR Citation) FINE
Hazardous driving (§ 1201.2) $ 25.00
Impeding or obstructing traffic (§ 1201.3) $ 25.00
Sounding of warning device (§ § 1201.14; 1204.7) $ 25.00
These are the ones I dislike the most, though many others smack of prejudice.
Cops have better things to do, and they will tell you so.
What cop has the time for this?
CB HI
04-22-05, 02:28 AM
How about those braking laws. How do you make wheels (2) skid with a brake (1). Same for fixed gear bike, skidding wheels?
As written, it is impossible to comply with the letter of the law until someone designs one break that will skid 2 wheels.
dwightonabike
04-22-05, 06:10 AM
Sounding a warning device? Does that mean it would be illegal to ring a bell?
AndrewP
04-22-05, 08:06 AM
Requirement to skid wheels, should be replaced by distance to stop from a given speed. Skidding front wheel is never likely to happen on a dry, level, clean pavement, unless it is dry ice.
Metro
04-22-05, 08:33 AM
It's just legislation. They have to have something on the books to refer to in those "unusual" cases that pop up unexpectedly. (Say a cyclist causes a major pile up, they have a bunch of stuff they can charge him with.)
There is no way the are going to do spot "bike safety checks." They would have to install a bike registration system similar to that of DMV. What are they going to do make us apply inspection stickers to the frame or something?
I can see the local cop pulling me over to check my license and registration. (Red flashing light coming up from behind me) "Pull over here please. Let me check your bike for loose parts. Do these brakes work? "Well you just saw me stop for you officer."..."Don't be a smart ass sir!" "Halt! vere are your papers? You have relatives in Germany....err...DC?"
DCCommuter
04-22-05, 08:35 AM
How about those braking laws. How do you make wheels (2) skid with a brake (1). Same for fixed gear bike, skidding wheels?
As written, it is impossible to comply with the letter of the law until someone designs one break that will skid 2 wheels.
And very few bikes other than tandems or recumbents will skid the front wheel rather than send you over the handlebars. And skidding says more about your tires than your brakes. And skidding is a sign of ineffective braking, not good braking.
I think what they're trying to do is come up with a standard that can be evaluated in a roadside test. I.e., cop stops you, says you have no brakes. You say, sure I do. He says they don't work. You say, they work fine. He says, make them skid. I can't think of a better standard that can be evaluated without any special equipment. The lighting standard is the same idea -- can you be seen from a reasonable distance?
The problem with both of these standards is that they are unlikely to be applied as intended. DC cops almost never ticket moving violations of any kind by anyone. Where they are most likely to be used is in civil litigation, to attempt to shift responsibility for an accident away from a motorist and onto a cyclist. The fact that these standards are devoid of any scientific or objective basis then becomes quite problematic.
Cars don't have this problem, because their equipment is highly regulated by the government. If you have DOT approved headlights and brakes, in good working order, you're good to go. I think the last thing cyclists want is a regulation that you have to use government approved equipment to be street legal. In fact, the purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the existing requirement in DC that lights be government-approved.
tulip
04-22-05, 09:00 AM
Is it illegal to have a horn or bell?
WABA has helped make this legislation reasonable. There are still some imperfections, but all-in-all, it seems like a good effort, especially the part about the fixed gear bikes not being required to have brakes. While I wouldn't ride without a brake, alot of fixie-people are quite talented and don't need to have brakes.
If they start requiring kickstands, then I'll complain.
Metro
04-22-05, 09:33 AM
I think whistles are illegal because they used to be used by traffic cops to direct traffic. At one time the whistle was the official emergency signal, as evidenced by some of the cop scenes in the old movies. (The guy robs the bank and runs outside, only to be seen by a foot cop, who blows his whistle alerting the other cops. They all respond and catch the bad guy). somehow, the law is still on the books. No one today thinks there is a police emergency when they hear a whistle. They do, however wonder if there was a foul committed on the basketball court. :)
noisebeam
04-22-05, 09:55 AM
...registration seem like bunk. The rest seems ok.
Where I live we have mandatory registration. However it requires a unique number to be chiseled under the BB. (You can't use the S/N). My LBS where I bought the bike suggested that I shouldn't do it as it would void the frame warrantee if is rusted/cracked there - so I didn't. They also said no one with CF bikes registers them as they can't chisel a number.
Al
pnj
04-22-05, 11:12 AM
I'm way to hungover to read all that...:)
do these new laws effect children and their bikes?
what about stunt bikes?
Gojohnnygo.
04-22-05, 11:36 AM
they're gonna fine people for not sitting on the bike properly? stupid conservatives. they're like nazi's on meth.
I seen that an I was like what to HELL. I can't stand up to pedal? :eek:
DCCommuter
04-22-05, 11:44 AM
Is it illegal to have a horn or bell?
1201.14 No person operating a bicycle shall sound any warning device at any
intersection so as to interfere with the obedience to the instructions of officia1
traffic control signals or to the directions of police traffic control officers.
1204.5 Each bicycle shall be equipped with a bell or other device capable of giving a
signal audible for a distance of at least one hundred feet (100 ft.).
1204.6 A bicycle shall not be equipped with, nor shall any bicycle rider use, a siren of
any kind.
1204.7 A bicycle rider shall not use the device for giving an audible signal when
operating the bicycle within the quiet zone established by the provisions of D.C.
Law 2-58 within one hundred (100) yards of any school, college, or university
while classes are in session, or within one hundred (100) yards of any hospital
or institution for the treatment of sick persons, except where such use is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the rider or pedestrians.
DCCommuter
04-22-05, 11:46 AM
they're gonna fine people for not sitting on the bike properly?
1201.4 No person shall operate or ride a bicycle other than upon or astride a regular seat
attached to the bicycle.
I take "astride" to mean pedalling standing up. I think the intent of this is that you can't go down the road pedaling with your hands or standing on the handlebars.
tulip
04-22-05, 12:05 PM
1201.14 No person operating a bicycle shall sound any warning device at any
intersection so as to interfere with the obedience to the instructions of officia1
traffic control signals or to the directions of police traffic control officers.
1204.5 Each bicycle shall be equipped with a bell or other device capable of giving a
signal audible for a distance of at least one hundred feet (100 ft.).
1204.6 A bicycle shall not be equipped with, nor shall any bicycle rider use, a siren of
any kind.
1204.7 A bicycle rider shall not use the device for giving an audible signal when
operating the bicycle within the quiet zone established by the provisions of D.C.
Law 2-58 within one hundred (100) yards of any school, college, or university
while classes are in session, or within one hundred (100) yards of any hospital
or institution for the treatment of sick persons, except where such use is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the rider or pedestrians.
Translation: Don't be a bozo and confuse drivers a whistle just for the fun of it. Do have a bell or other soundmaker to let people know you're coming from 100' away. Don't use a siren, duh. Don't bother sick or studious people just for kicks.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Metro
04-22-05, 12:33 PM
Where I live we have mandatory registration. However it requires a unique number to be chiseled under the BB. (You can't use the S/N). My LBS where I bought the bike suggested that I shouldn't do it as it would void the frame warrantee if is rusted/cracked there - so I didn't. They also said no one with CF bikes registers them as they can't chisel a number.
Al
You are saying that there is a madatory law requiring registration and engraving a number on your bike. Suppose you have a carbon frame; or worst, you mean I gotta get my Serotta tatooed. Sounds like a conenctration camp scenario to me. ;( (Just playing Devil's advocate here)
Metro
04-22-05, 12:39 PM
1201.14 No person operating a bicycle shall sound any warning device at any
intersection so as to interfere with the obedience to the instructions of officia1
traffic control signals or to the directions of police traffic control officers.
1204.5 Each bicycle shall be equipped with a bell or other device capable of giving a
signal audible for a distance of at least one hundred feet (100 ft.).
1204.6 A bicycle shall not be equipped with, nor shall any bicycle rider use, a siren of
any kind.
1204.7 A bicycle rider shall not use the device for giving an audible signal when
operating the bicycle within the quiet zone established by the provisions of D.C.
Law 2-58 within one hundred (100) yards of any school, college, or university
while classes are in session, or within one hundred (100) yards of any hospital
or institution for the treatment of sick persons, except where such use is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the rider or pedestrians.
That means that your bike horn must be audible up to 100 feet. If, on the other hand, some car happens to stop as a result of your honking, or you are in a "Quiet Zone", you are breaking the law.
You guys had better comply. Big brother is watching.
noisebeam
04-22-05, 01:15 PM
Read Section 7-11 - mandatory
Section 7-17 - city distrubuted 'dies' aka 'stamps' - that is what the LBS is given, a set of alpha numeric stamps to chisel the number with.
Section 7-18 - nothing shall prohibit stamped marking of frame and other components
http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07Bicycles.htm
I did note that first the 'stamp' (aka chisel) doesn't have to be on the bottom of the BB and also that the police chief can authorize an engraving instead of a 'stamp' But these were details the LBS didn't convey, they just suggested it would be a shame to mark up my new bike with a chisel.
Al
Metro
04-22-05, 01:35 PM
Read Section 7-11 - mandatory
Section 7-17 - city distrubuted 'dies' aka 'stamps' - that is what the LBS is given, a set of alpha numeric stamps to chisel the number with.
Section 7-18 - nothing shall prohibit stamped marking of frame and other components
http://www.tempe.gov/citycode/07Bicycles.htm
I did note that first the 'stamp' (aka chisel) doesn't have to be on the bottom of the BB and also that the police chief can authorize an engraving instead of a 'stamp' But these were details the LBS didn't convey, they just suggested it would be a shame to mark up my new bike with a chisel.
Al
How about a branding iron.
Raw Hide. Yeeee Haaaa..
noisebeam
04-22-05, 03:18 PM
Yeah, it does suck. I wonder if the bike police will ask to flip my bike over to read her undercarriage if I get stopped. I guess I could be at risk for the $25 fine or whatever it is. I wonder how many people with nice bikes actually scar them up? I can't imagine going thru the hassle if I had a CF bike to have the police chief approve my engraving vs. stamping. I wonder what would have been wrong to just register using the S/N? So many questions.
Al
CB HI
04-22-05, 04:12 PM
they're gonna fine people for not sitting on the bike properly? stupid conservatives. they're like nazi's on meth.
also, i get fined for sounding a warning device that might save my life? it sounds like they just wanna get rid of cycling all together.
Get a clue, Washinton DC is not a town run by conservitives. So I guess it must be the left leaning liberals that are like nazi's on meth.
CB HI
04-22-05, 04:26 PM
It is good that you will be able to clean up the laws. I like the fact that it will allow substituting the old red reflector with - amber refelctor, red light or amber light. Good Stuff
DC_Emily
04-22-05, 05:19 PM
Is it illegal to have a horn or bell?
WABA has helped make this legislation reasonable. There are still some imperfections, but all-in-all, it seems like a good effort, especially the part about the fixed gear bikes not being required to have brakes. While I wouldn't ride without a brake, alot of fixie-people are quite talented and don't need to have brakes.
If they start requiring kickstands, then I'll complain.
I'm rather impressed by the fact that they are not requiring brakes of fixies. I think they've just realized that they're fighting a loosing battle on that one.
I've never had a problem with DC cops. VA on the other hand......I had a cop stop me on my way home, and yell "STOP THE CAR!!" How was I supposed to keep a straight face?!
Just thought that was a funny story....but I digress......
DC_Emily
04-22-05, 05:22 PM
Whoever mentioned how these laws are being proposed in order to help shift liability from the rider to the driver (in instance of an accident) really hit the nail on the head. These laws are being passed because a) no one pays that much attention since most people know they aren't enforced, and b) they're very favorable to motorists.
DCCommuter, I applaud you for being on top of your bike laws. Props for that one!
twahl
04-22-05, 07:26 PM
they're gonna fine people for not sitting on the bike properly? stupid conservatives. they're like nazi's on meth.
Please....please name me a conservative on the DC city counsel. Congratulations for making the most ignorant statement of the day.
Wheel Doctor
04-22-05, 07:59 PM
Any clarification available for the first four? How does this last requirement apply to non-residents and/or tourists?
If you are a DC resident you must register you bike. If you are not a DC resident you are exempt.
DCCommuter
04-22-05, 11:04 PM
If you are a DC resident you must register you bike. If you are not a DC resident you are exempt.
It's actually more convoluted than that.
"1202.1 No person shall operate a bicycle in the District unless the bicycle has been
validly registered as provided by this chapter and bears a serial number, a valid
registration tag, and valid registration plate, as provided by this chapter; or
unless it is validly registered in another jurisdiction, when required by
applicable law of such jurisdiction, and bears readily visible evidence of being
registered.
1202.3 Subsection 1202.1 shall not apply to the operation of a bicycle within fourteen
(14) days of its being brought into the District except when being operated as a
means of transportation from a place of employment on a route which requires
the operation of the bicycle both outside and within the District of Columbia."
This law is so poorly written as to be essentially meaningless.
Riding TO work is OK, and riding FROM work is OK as long as you don't cross the District line, at least not while operating your bicycle "as a means of transportation." You could walk or put your bike on a bus or subway. Alternately, you could cease operating your bicyle as a means of transportation and operate it recreationally instead. :rolleyes: