COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & THE ENVIRONMENT

MARY M. CHEH, CHAIR

BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN WORKING GROUP:

UPDATING THE DISTRICTS
LAWS & REGULATIONS
Vision Zero Provisions
1.
New York City DOT Reports and Studies ..................................................................2
2.
San Francisco Harassment Prohibition and Cell Device Interlocks..........................2
3.
District of Columbia Vision Zero Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Fund ........................2
For-Hire Vehicle Provisions
4.
New York City Vision Zero and For-Hire Vehicles .......................................................2
5.
Coopers Law ..................................................................................................................3
6.
DCTC Crash Data ..........................................................................................................3
7.
Automatic Meter Shut-Off .............................................................................................3
Other
8.
9.
10.
11.

Motorcycles and ATVs ...................................................................................................3

Complete Streets ............................................................................................................4
Change Terminology from Accidents to Crashes .....................................................4
Deferred Adjudication Program.....................................................................................4

Bicycle-Specific
12.
Bicycle Insurance Information ......................................................................................4
13.
Insert Reference to Bicyclists in Insurance Laws .........................................................5
Pedestrian-Specific
14.
Safety Islands.................................................................................................................5
15.
Pedestrian Right of Way Law ........................................................................................5
Attachment
D.C. Official Code 50-2201.28

1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 108

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

Vision Zero Provisions

1.

New York City - DOT Reports and Studies

2.

San Francisco Harassment Prohibition and Cell Device Interlocks

The New York City 2014 Vision Zero legislation includes a number of provisions that
require the Department of Transportation to conduct particular studies and publish
reports. The District should consider requiring DDOT to:
1) Study left turns and produce a report every five years on that study.
2) Respond to address major traffic signal issues within 24 hours.
3) Produce a report on work zone safety guidelines on bridges.
4) Study arterial roadways and produce a report every five years on that study.
The Vision Zero plan in San Francisco includes some provisions that should be considered
in the District.
A. Illegal to Harass a Vulnerable User
Since 2011, Los Angeles has had a law to protect bicyclists from harassment from
motorists. The Massachusetts State legislature is currently considering a bill that would
make it illegal to physically harass a vulnerable user with a motor vehicle. The District
should consider making it illegal for a motor vehicle operator to harassi.e., threaten
verbally or physicallya vulnerable road user.
B. Cellular Communication Interlocks
To counteract distracted driving, manufacturers are looking into installing technologies
that deactivate cellular devices while a vehicle is in motion. The District should embrace
the advancement and utilization of this technology.

3.

District of Columbia Vision Zero Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Fund

The Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Support Act of 2015 includes the creation of the Vision Zero
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Funda fund that would replace the existing Pedestrian
and Bicycle Safety and Enhancement Fund. As proposed, the Vision Zero Fund will
annually receive $500,000 from fines generated from the Automated Traffic Enforcement
(ATE) system.

Since the ATE programs inception in 2001, it has generated $477,233,841. During just the
current fiscal year (FY 2015), ATE cameras have generated $14,723,564 in revenue. Given
the amount received through the ATE program, the District should increase the annual
distribution placed in the Vision Zero Fund and more directly link the fines associated with
traffic cameras to improvements made for bicycle and pedestrian safety.

For-Hire Vehicle Provisions

4.

New York City Vision Zero and For-Hire Vehicles

The District should consider implementing aspects of the New York City Vision Zero Action
Plan regarding taxis. These include:
1) Increased penalties for those who flee Hack Inspectors. The District could create a
criminal misdemeanor penalty for drivers that flee DCTC enforcement.
2

2) Increased sanctions for dangerous taxi driver behavior. The District could increase
the number of DCTC points accrued for safety-related violations, including failure to
exercise due care in circumstances resulting in a serious injury or death of a
pedestrian or bicyclist.
3) Combining critical driver (DMV) and persistent violator (DCTC) points. This may be
accomplished through legislation to permit DCTC to count both DMV points and
DCTC points together when evaluating whether to suspend or revoke a license.
4) Requiring additional driver education. The District could require additional
education for for-hire vehicle operators involved in frequent crashes.
5) Piloting new technologies. The District could pilot the use of black box data
recorderspilot technology that alerts passengers and drivers that they are
traveling over the speed limitand permit drivers to include a left-turn reminder
sticker in their vehicle.
6) Allowing DCTC to use speed cameras to sanction law-breaking drivers. The District
could amend the speed and bus lane camera laws to allow DCTC to issue tickets to
licensed drivers caught speeding or driving in the bus lane.

5.

Coopers Law

6.

DCTC Crash Data

7.

Automatic Meter Shut-Off

Coopers Law would require DCTC to suspend a driver involved in a crash in which a
person is critically injured or dies and where the driver receives a summons for any related
traffic violation.
DCTC should be required to review crashes that result in critical injury or death. The
District should also require DCTC to report quarterly crash data involving DCTC-licensed
vehicles. In this nature, the District should also amend the DCTC Critical Driver and
Persistent Violator programs.
The San Francisco Vision Zero plan includes a provision that results in a taxis meter being
automatically shut-off if the taxi is speeding. The District should consider this provision.

Other
8.

Motorcycles and ATVs

A. Motorcycles
Between 2009 and 2013, there were 16 motorcycle-related traffic fatalities and 515
motorcycle-related serious injuries. The District should consider increasing the penalties for
operating a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle without an endorsement. Similar to the NYC
Vision Zero initiative, the District should also prohibit stunt behaviors on motorcycles.
B. Off-Road Motorcycles and ATVs
MPD is currently prohibited from pursuing individuals on off-road motorcycles or ATVs.
The District should prohibit their presence in the District. The District should consider
creating a fund using money raising auctioning off illegal motorcycles and provide a $300
reward to any citizen who directs MPD to the location of an illegal motorcycle, once it is
seized. The change in the law would authorize MPD to seize them when the riders or
owners are not present, and therefore avoid pursuits and arrests.
3

9.

Complete Streets

10.

Change Terminology from Accidents to Crashes

11.

Deferred Adjudication Program

Complete Streets are streets that are designed and operated to enable safe access for all
users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and
abilities. 1 The District currently lacks any legislative or regulatory requirement to
implement a Complete Streets approach when designing street improvements. The District
should consider legislation that would require a Complete Streets approach with a process
and decision-making hierarchy. Similar to Chicagos Complete Streets approach, the
District should consider incorporating a review panel that reviews projects to document
exceptions to the guidelines.
The District should embrace the language and concept that crashes arent accidents. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started trying to change the language
back in the 1990s to reflect the subtle but significant distinction. New York City is using
the language change as part of its Vision Zero culture change, and MPDs PD 10 report
already uses the term crash throughout the report form. The District should also embrace
this standpoint.
The District should consider authorizing and developing creative deferred adjudication
programs with respect to moving violating involving pedestrians or bicyclists. The goal of
writing tickets is to change behavior. Austin, TX provides examples of creative alternatives
used to changing behavior instead of writing tickets. These include:
1) Offering participation in a Bike Safety 101 class for drivers or bicyclists who
receive tickets for bicycle violations.
2) A program for motor vehicle operators that receive a ticket for being on the phone in
a school zone. For this program, a defendant could spend 2-4 hours on site with a
school crossing guard where they would help to gather data on drivers violating cell
phone and various aggressive driving tactics toward pedestrian/crossing behaviors.

Bicycle-Specific
12.

Bicycle Insurance Information

There is currently not a lot of basic bicycle insurance coverage available in the District.
Additionally, there is virtually no comprehensive cycling insurance policy or coverage
offered or written in this area. What seems to happen is when a cyclist is involved in an
encounter with a motor vehicle, the cyclist pieces together coverage from many different
sources. For example, if a bike is stolen it is reported under a homeowners insurance
policy. When this happens, the claimant/insured is faced with paying a high deductible and
a ding against their homeowners policy may be the outcome.
What is good to know is that there are insurance companies that offer basic bicycle
coverage as stand-alone policies and some that offer a more comprehensive coverage to
include medical, liability, road side assistance, property damage, and theft.
For more information on Complete Streets, see http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/completestreets/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-faq.
1

The Districtin particular, the Department of Insurance, Securities and Bankingshould

post information online in the form of a Consumer Alert that provides contact information
for various bicycle insurance carriers and the products/coverage that they offer. This alert
could also provide safety information, relevant laws, and information about various nonprofits or community bicycle events.

13.

Insert Reference to Bicyclists in Insurance Laws

The Districts relevant insurance laws include reference to motorist, motor vehicles,
passengers, and pedestrians. There is no reference, however, to cyclist or bicyclist.
The Districts insurance law should include reference to bicyclists, and ensure that
bicyclists receive the same level of consumer protections as motor vehicles.

Pedestrian-Specific
14.

Safety Islands

15.

Pedestrian Right of Way Law

D.C. Official Code 50-2201.28 and the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations give
pedestrians who start with a walk signal right of way to cross the street or to reach a
safety island. The term safety island is not defined in the Code or the Regulations, but a
reasonable persons understanding of the term would be that there should be an island,
that is, most important, a safe place to stand while vehicle traffic moves past you. This,
unfortunately, is sometimes not the case. For example, a pedestrian attempting to walk
around Dupont Circle will encounter pedestrian signals that seem to require stopping in
the middle of the crosswalk 2 or stopping on a minimal island of dubious safety, especially
when many people are trying to cross the street. 3 Although the current design of streets
like this may be more convenient for vehicle traffic, it is not consistent with the laws
requirements or with the principle of protecting pedestrians.
DCs Pedestrian Right-of-Way Law has been amended multiple times in recent years with
some resulting awkward wording. The current text of the pedestrian right of way law may
be found at D.C. Official Code 50-2201.28 (attached).
Issues:
A. Subsection (a)
Its unclear whether the approaching the lane requirement applies only while the
pedestrian is walking toward the driver. For example, can the driver move as soon as the
pedestrian passes or must they remain stopped until the pedestrian is at least one lane
away? This could be clarified by changing the wording to when the pedestrian is upon the
lane or within one lane of the lane upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is
turning.
B. Subsections (a) and (b)

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.910392,77.043473,3a,75y,90.48h,81.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEgl6vb6VSXGUfHczu-AeoA!2e0!6m1!1e1
3 https://www.google.com/maps/@38.909525,77.042671,3a,75y,180h,81.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJoPjjYQhQcXyF36Sx_5_1Q!2e0
2

Subsection (a), which was rewritten in 2013 to reflect the current wording, originally
provided, When official traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the
driver of a vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway
within any marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. It is unclear from
the current wording whether this section is intended to apply only to unsignalized/nonoperating intersections, or also to signalized intersections. If it also is intended to apply to
signalized intersections, then the wording here is not consistent with the requirements in
(b), which requires drivers to give right of way until the pedestrian reaches the opposite
side or safety island, which could be more than 2 lanes away. It would be helpful to clarify
the text either way. For example:
If this provision is intended to apply only to unsignalized intersections, the deleted
wording could be restored and the entire provision edited to read:
o When official traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the
driver of a vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing the roadway with any marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk at
an intersection. For purposes of this subsection, stop and give the right-ofway means that the driver of the vehicle stops and remains stopped to allow
a pedestrian to cross the roadway when the pedestrian is upon the lane, or
within one lane of the lane, on which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it
is turning.
If this provision is intended to apply to both (a) and (b), then a new sentence could
be added to (b) mirroring the language. For example:
o For purposes of this section, give right-of-way means that the driver of a
vehicle stops and remains stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway
when the pedestrian is upon the lane, or within one lane of the lane, on
which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning.
An alternative approach would be to add a new separate subsection defining the
phrase give right-of-way.
C. Subsection (a-1)
This provision should be clarified to require the second driver to follow the same rules as
the first, as outlined in (a) and/or prohibit the second driver from passing the first. It
doesnt make sense to allow the second driver to pass the stopped vehicle if the pedestrian
is upon the lane or next to the lane that the second driver is occupying. It also is unclear
why this provision only applies to marked crosswalks wouldnt the second driver would
have the same obligation as the first to stop for pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks under
(a)? One approach to this issue would be to replace the current wording of (a-1) with a
similar provision from the Uniform Vehicle Code: Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a
marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian
to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approach from the read shall not
overtake and pass such stopped vehicle. 4
D. Subsection (b)
This subsection says that pedestrians only have right of way at signalized intersections if
they begin crossing with a walk signal and that, having done that, they continue to have
right of way until they reach the other side of the street or a safety island. While the
Section 11-502(d) of the Uniform Vehicle Code, available at http://iamtraffic.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf.
4

requirement that the pedestrian begin crossing with a walk signal is longstanding and
superficially appealing, its time may have passed. Most significantly, as DDOT moves
through its signal optimization process, we are seeing an increasing number of
intersections where the "walk" phase of the signal is absurdly short (4-7 seconds)so short
that if there are many pedestrians waiting, there is no way everyone will be able to get off
the curb before the don't walk signal starts. This is happening because a part of the signal
optimization process is bringing the signals into compliance with federal ADA rules
obviously a vital goal, but the overall approach has been to just truncate the walk phase
and lengthen the don't walk phase rather than actually provide people with the additional
time necessary to get off the curb and make the crossing. Similarly, at some intersections
where pedestrians are required to push buttons to cross the street, the pedestrian signal
will periodically cycle through a dont walk phase and then resume a walk phase while
the signal for drivers remains green throughout. Clearly, it is not unsafe for pedestrians to
cross during the dont walk phase.
E. Subsections (c) and (c-1)
This section provides for criminal sanctions and was amended in 2013 to lower the criminal
fine from $500 (set in 1985 and worth about $1,200 in 2015 when adjusted for inflation) to
$250. The reference to section 22-3571.01 in the first sentence is a reference to a provision
of the DC code that prescribes criminal fines. Under that section, if an offense can be
punished by up to 30 days of prison time (as is the case here), the fine is up to $250.
Meanwhile, when (c-1) was originally enacted in 2008, the new alternative civil fine was set
at $250 and that fine was effectively lowered to $75 for most violations by the amendments
made in 2013, although they range from $50 to $500. The $500 fine is the civil fine for
colliding with a pedestrian; thus the civil fine is currently higher than the criminal fine.
The civil fines appear in DCMR 18-2600 (see DCMR link above). The statutory and
regulatory fine structure is not the most coherent. The Working Group could recommend a
thorough review of the D.C. Official Code and the DCMR fining provisions both to provide
for more coherence/graduation and/or to increase the fines (either cross the board or for
repeat violators) and better align them with the public policy underlying the law.
F. General
In addition, these subsections provide no guidelines for when the civil vs. criminal fine
should be applied, nor has it been easy to locate any administrative regulation or guidance
that addresses this point. Through informal discussions with MPD and DDOT, it appears
that the criminal fine is only applied when a driver collides with a pedestrianany other
violation of pedestrian right of way would lead only to a civil fine. While this may be an
appropriate approach in most circumstances, we can probably all envision others where
criminal sanctions would be more appropriatee.g. if a pedestrian is injured while
attempting to avoid being hit by a driver violating their right of way, or where a driver
collides with one pedestrian and only misses others because the others are agile enough to
jump out of the way, or where the driver has a record of repeated safety violations. It is also
unclear when or if the imprisonment or community service provisions are invoked. The
Working Group could recommend that either the law be amended to provide general
parameters on how the various penalties should be applied or assign authority to MPD
and/or the OAG to set those general parameters and publish them on an easily accessible
website.

D.C. Official Code 50-2201.28. Right-of-way at crosswalks

(a) The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to
cross the roadway within any marked crosswalk, or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection,
when the pedestrian is upon the lane, or within one lane approaching the lane, on which
the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning.
(a-1) Whenever a vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk at an unsignalized
intersection, a vehicle approaching the crosswalk in an adjacent lane or from behind the
stopped vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to ensure the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists before passing the stopped vehicle.
(b) A pedestrian who has begun crossing on the WALK signal shall be given the
right-of-way by the driver of any vehicle to continue to the opposite sidewalk or safety
island, whichever is nearest.
(b-1) A person on a bicycle or operating a personal mobility device upon or along a
sidewalk or while crossing a roadway in a crosswalk shall have the rights and duties
applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances; provided, that:
(1) The bicyclist or personal mobility device operator yields to pedestrians on
the sidewalk or crosswalk; and
(2) Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is permitted.
(c) Any person convicted of failure to stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian
or of colliding with a pedestrian shall be subject to a fine of not more than the amount set
forth in 22-3571.01, or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. Any person
convicted of a violation of this section may be sentenced to perform community service as an
alternative to, but not in addition to, any term of imprisonment authorized by this section.
(c-1) Civil fines, penalties, and fees may be imposed by the Department of Motor
Vehicles as alternative sanctions for any infraction of the provisions of this section, or rules
or regulations issued under the authority of this section, pursuant to Chapter 23 of this
title [ 50-2301.01 et seq.]. Adjudication of any infraction shall be pursuant to Chapter 23 of
this title [ 50-2301.01 et seq.].
(d) The Mayor of the District of Columbia ("Mayor") shall submit to the Council of
the District of Columbia ("Council") a proposed plan for an extensive public information
program on the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and drivers. This proposed plan
shall include proposals for increasing police enforcement of pedestrian right-of-way laws.
The proposed plan shall be submitted to the Council within 90 days of October 9, 1987, for a
45-day period of review, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays, and days of Council
recess. If the Council does not approve or disapprove the proposed plan, in whole or in part,
by resolution within this 45-day review period, the proposed plan shall be deemed
approved.
(e) Prosecution for violations under this section shall be conducted in the name of
the District of Columbia by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, or his or her
assistants, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.