Last fall, the East Bay Bicycle Coalition set out a bold plan.

During the November 2012 election, voters in Alameda County considered a reauthorization of the Alameda County Transportation Sales Tax Measure. The ballot measure, Measure B1, was a 30-year plan to raise an additional $7.8 billion for county transportation needs by instituting a penny sales tax. And thanks to the East Bay Bicycle Coalition’s careful advocacy, the measure would direct more than 11% of the new funding to biking and walking projects.

The measure’s passage would be big news for transportation in Alameda. Dave Campbell, Advocacy Director at the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, knew that the measure was a golden opportunity to create a local funding source for local transportation improvements. “The county transportation agency had realized for several years now that federal funding was significantly decreasing, and state funding was decreasing even more,” Dave explained. “They needed to raise more money locally to support the projects they wanted to do.”

Staff at the East Bay Bicycle Coalition readied a full-on campaign to support the ballot measure’s passage. To bolster the organization’s efforts, the East Bay Bicycle Coalition applied for and received a Rapid Response grant from Advocacy Advance.

What happened next? Read more on the Advocacy Advance blog.

Thanks to great grassroots advocacy, Pennsylvania just got a little closer to recognizing walking and biking as truly integral components of the state’s transportation system.

Republican state Sen. John Rafferty, chair of the Senate transportation committee, introduced a bill last week that would create dedicated funding for walking and biking paths in the state. He also plans to propose a Complete Streets policy — a bill stipulating that transportation planners consider people traveling by bike, on foot, and by transit in addition to by car.

The dedicated funding provision will be attached to a larger statewide transportation funding measure and would raise $2.5 billion for transportation in the state annually by drawing on wholesale fuel taxes.

This is Pennsylvania’s first commitment to designate specific transportation dollars for active transportation — and it will have a huge impact on walkability and bikeability in neighborhood streets. Governor Tom Corbett’s Transportation Secretary Barry Schoch acknowledged that the state’s engineers and planners routinely try to incorporate bike and walk infrastructure into construction projects, but often lack funding to do so. With dedicated funding, cities and towns will have clear budget sources for active transportation projects.

To read the rest of this post, click here.

(Photo: The new Pennsylvania funding measure could support rail trails like this one. Credit: Richard Masoner/Flickr)

At 197 square miles, the city of Tulsa is larger than San Francisco, Boston, Washington D.C. and Miami combined. There are enough lane miles of streets in the city to stretch from New York to Los Angles and back to Tulsa — with 500 miles to spare.  An improvement to Tulsa’s streets would significantly transform the region.

The City of Tulsa has been rebuilding its streets under a capital improvements program called “Fix Our Streets” since 2008, but rebuilding them the way they were over forty years ago before they deteriorated so badly, without adding bike lanes or any other accommodations.

Fix Our Streets is coming up for a 5-year renewal this year, and local advocates are working hard to make sure that the proposed $800 million in road improvements include high-quality facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.

“We need to put the pressure on and show that many every-day people want this for our city,” says Stephen Lassiter, a member of the Tulsa Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). “We can’t afford to have five more years of streets projects that do not include bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure.”

To read the rest of this post, click here.

One thing everyone can agree on, however, is that bicycling and walking projects are broadly eligible for the majority of federal funding programs in the new federal transportation law, MAP-21. These large and often flexible programs represent a huge opportunity for bike/ped projects to compete with others for a larger share of transportation funding.

Advocates in Delaware and Washington State, for example, have already had great success tapping into some of these larger funding programs for their states’ bicycling investments. They have done this by understanding two things:

1. How the programs work, and
2. The political dynamics. Through the Advocacy Advance Program, a partnership between the League and the Alliance for Biking & Walking, we urge advocates to learn the Who, What, Where, When, and How of the funding process and political landscape.

To demystify a fairly complex process, we’ve created a series of flow charts to illustrate the technical process from planning to construction — and the advocacy steps advocates can take to influence the process. Click on the links below to learn about the program, and check the back for more detailed recommendations.

• The Surface Transportation Program (STP)
•  The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
• The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• The Transportation Improvement Program (TA or TAP)

Please contact me if you have any questions at darren@bikeleague.org.

Darren Flusche
League Policy Director

Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.

Currently, no state has such a requirement, though a good number have a similar statute to Maryland’s: mandating helmet use for bicyclists under the age of 16.

With all the discussion about helmet laws, I figured it was a good time to tackle this thorny issue in my ongoing Bike Law University series…

What are helmet laws?

Helmet laws require any person on a bicycle wear a helmet. All current helmet laws are directed at persons under the age of 18. No state requires mandatory helmet use by all bicyclists. In many states,  helmet laws can be enforced against the person on the bicycle or against a parent of that person. Some states with a mandatory helmet use law limit whether compliance with the law can be considered in civil lawsuits in order to prevent their laws from limiting the recovery of bicyclists who are injured. There are many other variations on the enforcement and effect of mandatory helmet use laws, as discussed through the laws of our spotlight states.

Why should you care?

The use of helmets is perhaps the most common recommendation for safer bicycling. The League has encouraged bicyclists to wear helmets for more than 25 years, and our affiliated clubs and advocacy groups typically require their use on organized rides. However, the League does not support mandatory helmet laws because of the many potential unintended consequences.

The experience of countries with greater bicycle use than the United States tells us that safer bicycling comes from many policy decisions — especially safer infrastructure — and does not require mandatory helmet use laws. Mandatory helmet use laws may hurt bicyclist safety overall by discouraging bicycling, by promoting the idea that it is an unsafe activity or by raising a barrier to transportation choice — despite being the safest choice for an individual cyclist. We all want safer bicycling and policies that encourage more people to ride, provide appropriate facilities, and educate all road users about safely sharing the road. These are likely to be more effective in the long term.

Who has them?

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that require persons under the age of 18 to wear a helmet. Within that, however, the age threshold varies widely. Of states that require helmet use, most (12) only require helmets for persons less than 16 years of age. Of the 15 states that require helmet use, the District of Columbia and Virginia — which does not require helmet use — maintain a law that limits the consideration of failure to wear a helmet in a lawsuit. This protects the ability of a bicyclist who chose not to wear a helmet to recover damages if they are injured in a crash. The need for and effect of such a law may be more or less necessary depending upon how liability or fault is determined in a state.

(Click on the image to view the full chart showing the breakdown of helmet laws across the country.)

Where did they come from?

The first state to pass a mandatory helmet law was California in 1986. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has had mandatory helmet performance requirements for helmet manufacturers since 1999. As of the last revision to the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in 2000, there is no UVC section equivalent to a helmet law.

Spotlight States – New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania

When a community chooses to adopt a mandatory helmet use law there are many things to consider. The most common legal concept that varies between states is the age of the persons affected by the mandatory use law. The age standards of the states that have mandatory helmet use laws are detailed in the chart below. States have enacted laws that include some other legal concepts that I would like to highlight. No one state has a statute that includes all of the concepts that may be useful to consider when evaluating a mandatory helmet law, so here we’ll look at three.

New York – VAT §1238

Limitation on Effect of Law – When you create a mandatory helmet use law you open up injured bicyclists to losing out on their ability to recover damages when they are injured if they were not wearing a helmet in compliance with the law. In certain situations, such as being hit by a speeding car, this could create inequity between injured bicyclists, or the families of deceased bicyclists, because of the law rather than the circumstances of the crash. By limiting the ability to consider compliance with a mandatory helmet use law ensures that the focus is on the circumstances of a crash rather than the compliance of the bicyclist with the law.

(7) “The failure of any person to comply with the provisions of this section shall not constitute contributory negligence or assumption of risk, and shall not in any way bar, preclude or foreclose an action for personal injury or wrongful death by or on behalf of such person, nor in any way diminish or reduce the damages recoverable in any such action.”

Dismissal for hardship – In the United States data suggests that helmet ownership and usage is lower among low-income communities. Free or subsidized helmet programs have been shown to be an effective intervention to increase ownership and use within low-income communities. By providing for a waiver due  economic hardship the law helps ensure that the impact of a mandatory helmet use law is not felt disproportionately by low-income communities or provide limit the ability of low-income individuals to take advantage of bicycling as a form of cheap  transportation.

(6)(c) “The court may waive any fine for which a person … if the court finds that due to reasons of economic hardship such person was unable to purchase a helmet or due to such economic hardship such person was unable to obtain a helmet from the [statewide helmet distribution program].”

New Jersey – §39:4-10.2

Dedication of fines

(b) “All money collected as fines … shall be deposited in a nonlapsing revolving fund to be known as the ‘Bicycle and Skating Safety Fund.’  Interest earned on money deposited in the fund shall accrue to the fund.  Money in the fund shall be utilized by the director to provide educational programs devoted to bicycle, roller skating and skateboarding safety.  If the director … also may use … the money to assist low income families in purchasing approved bicycle helmets.”

Pennsylvania – 75: §3510

Dismissal for purchase – The purpose of a mandatory helmet use law is to ensure that people have and use helmets while bicycling. By providing a waiver of a fine for a violation of a mandatory helmet use law if a bicyclist can show the purchase of a helmet a bicyclist is given an incentive to ensure they can comply with the law in the future.

(b)(2) “If a person receives a citation … a [ judge] shall dismiss the charges if the person prior to or at the person’s hearing displays evidence of acquisition of a helmet … [judge]. Sufficient evidence shall include a receipt mailed to the appropriate court officer which evidences purchase or transfer of such a helmet from another helmet owner, evidenced by a notarized letter.”

Religious exception – Some religions have beliefs that are inconsistent with properly wearing a bicycle helmet. For instance, devout Sikhs are expected to wear a turban which a bicycle helmet cannot accommodate. By providing a religious exception to the application of a mandatory helmet use law these religious communities are not disproportionately affected by the law and continue to use and enjoy bicycles.

(b)(3) “This section shall not apply to a child under 12 years of age who can produce a statement from the family’s church authorities attesting that it is against the tenets of the family’s religion to wear a helmet.”

Stay tuned for future Bike Law University posts and check out our interactive map to learn more about laws in your state.

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

They may provide small bursts of funding, but Rapid Response Grants are having a big impact across the country.

A key aspect of the Advocacy Advance program, these grants are aimed at helping state and local organizations take advantage of unexpected opportunities to win, increase, or preserve funding for biking and walking. There’s no deadline for applications and awards are made on a quick turnaround, allowing nimble and timely campaigns that strike while the issue is hot.

Most recently, these grants have boosted both rural and urban campaigns, from Philadelphia, Pa., to Cheyenne, Wy. Check out these in-depth stories of Rapid Response success from Mary Lauran Hall of the Alliance for Biking & Walking, our partner in the Advocacy Advance effort:

• With Rapid Response Grant, WABA Improves Police Enforcement for Bicyclists in DC
• ‘Scramble is On’ to Save a Marin, CA Pedestrian Crossing
• With Rapid Response Grant, Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia Champions Biking and Walking
• Idaho & Wyoming Groups Use Advocacy Advance Grants to Protect Biking and Walking Dollars

(Photo courtesy of WABA)

When your community draws 100 people to a community bike forum (pictured below) to listen to presentations about transportation policy – on a Saturday night – you have some real bike culture developing.

When the staff and board of your city’s bicycling advocacy organization lock themselves in a room for two days to develop an ambition campaign to access public funding for bicycling investment, you have savvy grassroots leadership.

When your city’s assistant director for transportation planning announces a goal of becoming a top ten bicycle commuter city in the next few years – and hopes to skip Bronze and go right to Silver Bicycle Friendly Community status – you have political buy-in. And it doesn’t hurt when Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is giving your mayor a shout out for improving urban livability.

When your city council is about to vote on allocating $2.5 million from a bond to fund 15 miles of bike facilities and Complete Streets, your community may be about to put its money where its mouth is.

All of these things are true of Atlanta, Ga., where the Advocacy Advance team supported a customized Winning Campaigns Training, based on the Alliance for Biking and Walking’s signature training, and the afore-mentioned community forum.

“Last year marked a turning point for bike advocacy in Atlanta,” said Rebecca Serna, Executive Director of the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition. “Our mayor hopped on a bike and said he wanted Atlanta to be a beacon of bike-friendliness, not for the Southeast, not for the South, but for the nation. That’s a lofty goal but he’s done nothing but meet goals in his first term, so we anticipate great things to come in our city.”

The Winning Campaign Training brought together a large portion of the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition’s board and the staff to walk step by step through a campaign to respond to a recent unsuccessful transportation sales tax measure, T-SPLOST. ”The Winning Campaigns Training really helped our leadership team focus, providing the structure we needed to accelerate group genius,” ABC Board Member Jenn Graham said.

Advocacy Advance has given the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition a Model Grant to ensure that the city increases its investment in bicycling and walking infrastructure and it is paying off. Over the past several years, the city’s leaders have started to recognize the need to make Atlanta a biking- and walking-friendly community. We’ll keep you posted on their progress.

“Georgia Bikes is thrilled with the leadership and commitment to better bicycling on display in Atlanta,” said Brent Bruice, executive director of Georgia’s statewide advocacy organization. “Our state capital is leading by example and showing the way to being bike friendly for cities throughout Georgia.”

And if you are ever bicycling in Atlanta, you can use this app to track your route and send data directly to the city’s transportation planners.

Darren Flusche
League Policy Director

Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.

We know you’re keen to learn more, so, over coming weeks, we’ll delve into each of the 11 categories we highlighted, from sidewalk riding to distracted driving. To start, we’re taking a deep dive into Safe Passing Laws.

What are Safe Passing Laws?

Safe passing laws require vehicles to pass each other at a safe distance. In most states, the amount of space necessary to be “safe” isn’t defined, but, in a growing number of states, there are laws that say a safe distance between a bicyclist and a motorist is not less than three feet.

Click the image to download the chart showing safe passing laws for all 50 states and DC

Why should you care?

A safe passing law is valuable because it raises awareness as to how vehicles should share the road. It may also lead to enforcement actions against unsafe passing or be used in legal actions resulting from collisions or other incidents between road users.

Who has them?

All states have some version of a safe passing law. In 32 states, and the District of Columbia, the safe passing law explicitly mentions bicyclists. In the other 18 states, bicyclists are protected by safe passing laws written with no distinction between bicyclists and other road users.

In 24 states, and the District of Columbia, there is a defined distance standard — typically three feet — which sets the minimum distance required for safe passing. The other 26 states do not define what constitutes a safe distance in terms of feet. There are four states – Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont – which have laws that do not define a minimum safe distance in terms of feet, but are significantly different than the Uniform Vehicle Code in a way that provides more protection to bicyclists.

Spotlight State – New Hampshire

New Hampshire has a great law regulating safe passing because it incorporates several different concepts to ensure that a bicyclist is protected. The law states:

Every driver of a vehicle, when approaching a bicyclist, shall insure the safety and protection of the bicyclist and shall exercise due care by leaving a reasonable and prudent distance between the vehicle and the bicycle. The distance shall be presumed to be reasonable and prudent if it is at least 3 feet when the vehicle is traveling at 30 miles per hour or less, with one additional foot of clearance required for every 10 miles per hour above 30 miles per hour. – N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §265:143-a

This law touches on three important concepts:

1. Due care – By saying that a driver must exercise due care the law creates a relationship of responsibility for the driver of a vehicle approaching a bicyclist. Language stating a due care requirement may make it easier for bicyclists to hold a driver liable if hit.
2. Defined distance – By stating that a reasonable and prudent distance is one of at least 3 feet the law makes it easy to publicize what is regarded as a safe distance and reinforces the most commonly required safe passing distance.
3. Variable distance – By stating that a reasonable and prudent distance is one that varies with increased speed, the law makes it clear that three feet is not an absolute. What is safe can vary depending upon speed and road conditions. Recognizing this is rare amongst state laws that define a safe distance.

Where did they come from?

The first state to pass a three foot law was Wisconsin in 1973. Safe passing laws that do not define a distance are generally derived from the model laws found in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC), which was last updated in 2000.

There are three UVC sections that have an impact on safe passing laws. If you would like to know more about safe passing in your state, or you are considering new legislation in this area of law, finding your state’s equivalent statutes for the following UVC sections would be a good place to look.

UVC 11-303: Overtaking a Vehicle on the Left – This section is the source of the safe distance language used by a majority of states.

UVC 11-305: Limitations on Overtaking on the Left – This section generally deals with crossing the center-line of the roadway in order to pass another vehicle. Crossing the center line can be relevant to safe passing laws because a vehicle may have to cross the center line in order to provide a safe distance while passing, therefore it is important that vehicles are allowed to do so.

UVC 11-306: Further Limitations on Driving on Left of Center of Roadway– This section deals with crossing the center-line of the roadway in order to pass when there are specific road circumstances that compromise visibility. Since it only applies when there are specific road circumstances, like a curve or slope that may affect visibility, it is less likely to create problems when interacting with a safe passing law.

Click to download the chart of safe passing laws for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Ken McLeod
Legal Specialist, Advocacy Advance

Ken joined the League in 2012 after graduating from William & Mary School of Law. He is a licensed attorney in the state of Virginia. During law school he worked for a private law firm in Cambodia and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, Ken worked at a law firm in Orange County and a legal services provider in Seattle. He graduated from Pomona College in 2007 with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. He began using his bike regularly after college and has been car-free since February 2012.

Immediately after the passage of the new law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, the League launched Navigating MAP-21 to ensure that advocates and policymakers understand what the new law means for bicyclists — and how to best utilize the programs to continue building a bicycle friendly America.

In short order, the Advocacy Advance team put together a wealth of resources explaining how the new programs work, how much money each state will get and how to best organize at a state and local level to make the best of the new bill. And grassroots advocates stepped up to the plate, mobilizing quickly in dozens of states and beginning the long-term work to maximize funding for biking under MAP-21.

But the team didn’t stop with online resources and technical assistance — they brought the knowledge to the people. More than 500 participants attended the incredibly successful Navigating MAP-21 workshops in eight cities. From Atlanta, Ga., to Anchorage, AK, those workshops had a huge impact, leading to more than $10 million in new funding for bike/ped projects in local communities.

Navigating MAP-21 workshop in Kansas City

Beyond Navigating MAP-21, Advocacy Advance released a number of important reports, too, shedding light on best practices for Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees, how bike advocates can make the most of elections, and more compelling data on how bicycling boosts the economy.

The Advocacy Advance team has plans to do even more in 2013 (if that’s possible!) — with a new staff member, a system to track federal funding, at least 10 workshops and a whole suite of new resources. After all, we’re just getting started Navigating MAP-21.

Carolyn Szczepanski
Communications Director

Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.

Talk about an impressive year for Advocacy Advance.

Over the past 11 months, the Advocacy Advance team — a partnership of the League and Alliance for Biking & Walking — has been your source for critical analysis and resources on the new federal transportation bill. But, beyond the reports and webinars and one-on-one assistance, Darren and Brighid have been out in the field conducting Navigating MAP-21 Workshops, too.

Funded by SRAM, these workshops have brought together advocates, agency staff and elected officials, giving them the tools and knowledge to access federal funding for local biking and walking projects and program.

And, from Atlanta, Ga., to Anchorage, AK, those workshops have had a huge impact, leading to more than $10 million in new funding for bike/ped projects in local communities.

Read the full and impressive recap on the Advocacy Advance blog.

Carolyn Szczepanski
Communications Director

Carolyn joined the League in March 2012, after two years at the Alliance for Biking & Walking. In addition to managing the League's blog, magazine and other communications, Carolyn organized the first National Women's Bicycling Summit and launched the League's newest program: Women Bike. Before she crossed over to advocacy, she was a professional journalist for nearly 10 years.