The Complete Streets bill is made up of H.F. 2801 and S.F. 2461.

Per the bills – and general definition of Complete Streets from a national policy perspective – Complete Streets considers the needs of all users moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

In the case of Minnesota’s Complete Streets legislation, Complete Streets applies to every road construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation project funded partially or completely by the state.

Federal bills to create similar consideration for federally-funded road projects is still pending as S. 584 and H.R. 1443. Minnesota’s Senators – Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken – have both signed on to S. 584 as co-sponsors. H.R. 1443 is currently co-sponsored by Reps. Keith Ellison (MN-5) and Tim Walz (MN-1). Minnesota’s other Congressional representatives have not yet signed on as co-sponsors. While this is not necessarily a sign that they do not support the legislation, if you live in Districts 2, 3, 4, or 6, consider writing a letter of support to your Congressperson.

SF 2453 and HF 2616 amend Minnesota Statutes 169.06, Subd. 9 to insert the words “bicycle or” into the existing law that allows motorcycles an affirmative defense for proceeding through a red light if the motorcycle is unable to trigger the signal to change to green.

Subd. 9. Affirmative defense relating to unchanging traffic-control signal.
(a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the bicycle or motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;
(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;
(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the bicycle or motorcycle; and
(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control
signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil or criminal action.

The big things to keep in mind is that a full stop is required, and it needs to stay red for an unreasonable time. Cyclists need to use some sense when defining ‘unreasonable.’ Motorist distance on the cross-street is also a consideration.

Jumping the red after resting for 2.2 milliseconds is not the intent of this new rule, and has a risk of increasing cyclists’ reputation for ignoring traffic signals and laws. Use the law in good faith!

Turns out that the statute does not in fact apply to bicycles. During initial passage, the word bicycle was stricken from the statute.

Two bills currently in the Minnesota Legislature are working to change that – S.F. 2453 and H.F. 2616. They’re essentially the same bill, only one is the Senate version, one the House. If passed and signed – and it seems pretty uncontroversial – this would bring bicyclists under the statute with clarity.

It might not be a bad plan to contact your legislators and suggest a positive vote on these bills – just to be sure.

• The Winona Bridge, about which I have written a billion times following its brief closure in Summer 2008, is now scheduled for ‘rehabilitation’ in 2014. Everyone gets to take their chances on this fracture-critical structure until then.

• A Complete Streets bill is under consideration in Minnesota. I recommend against even going NEAR the comments on the linked article, as they are full of standard-issue hatred of bicyclists and the same tired arguments about licensing, taxes, and etc. that we have heard many times before.
• City of St. Paul is starting pothole patching this week. Hooray. I think we’ve all encountered a few doozies lately. MPR’s user-driven pothole map is pretty epic.
• The National Bicycle Summit is next week in Washington DC. I’ll be there! Watch this space for coverage of the sessions, plus I’ll also provide a summary of the bills we’re advocating for on Capitol Hill – the Active Community Transportation Act of 2010, the federal Complete Streets bill, the Urban Revitalization and Livable Communities Act and the reauthorization of Safe Routes to School.

Photo Credit: US Census Bureau PIO

• Drivers are 8 times as likely to get in an accident while texting than those, you know, paying attention
• Driver distraction was reported to have been involved in 16 percent of all fatal crashes in 2008
• An estimated 22 percent of injury crashes were reported to have involved distracted driving

(Source: USDOT data)

Now, Oprah’s on the scene. Monday’s Oprah show put a spotlight on distracted driving and its dangers. The Department of Transportation blog offers links to the transcript of the show, as well as a link to the safety pledge Oprah is asking people to sign.

Distracted driving is a huge issue in Minnesota and nationally. The DOT has been focusing on it as an issue, and the Minnesota Trucking Association is now running an educational campaign to their members.

Minnesota already has a no-texting-while-driving law; many other states do as well. Like the drinking age, this is an issue that needs to be legislated on a state-by-state basis, but the federal checkbook may provide pressures to pass legislation. Now with Oprah on the scene, expect to see more press on these efforts to legislate what should be common sense.

A police officer in New Zealand nabbed a pair of cyclists out for a little night ride in the nude. The constable sent the duo home for helmets.

While nudity is a chargeable offense in the twon of Whangamata, the constable was cutting the men a break at the start of beach party season. Helmets, while well and good, are not going to prevent road rash and a not-so-fresh feeling if any balance issues or falls happen, however. OW.

We have another fine example of this genre over at the Strib again. The comments, especially, contain a fine run of the usual: Get on the sidewalks, what of the nice trails we paid for so you would get out of our way, you only obey laws when you feel like it, roads are less safe than trails. More haters on parade, egged on by even reasonable comments from people who know their bicycle laws.

I’ve written about this all before – Toys, Letters & the Bullying Response being the most notable case. As Bob Mionske has said, even if every cyclist stopped at every stop sign (which is a good plan, mind you), you’d still get the misguided squawking about bicycles not belonging on roads.

As bicycle advocates, we’ve got miles and years to go before we reach full acceptance.

Minnesota law discusses the need for lights in darkness in 169.22:

Subd. 6. Bicycle equipment. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with a lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and with a red reflector of a type approved by the Department of Public Safety which is visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. No person may operate a bicycle at any time when there is not sufficient light to render persons and vehicles on the highway clearly discernible at a distance of 500 feet ahead unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with reflective surfaces that shall be visible during the hours of darkness from 600 feet when viewed in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. The reflective surfaces shall include reflective materials on each side of each pedal to indicate their presence from the front or the rear and with a minimum of 20 square inches of reflective material on each side of the bicycle or its operator. Any bicycle equipped with side reflectors as required by regulations for new bicycles prescribed by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission shall be considered to meet the requirements for side reflectorization contained in this subdivision. A bicycle may be equipped with a rear lamp that emits a red flashing signal.

A common question I hear is if a helmet lamp is suitable under this statute. While I am not a lawyer or a law officer, I know quite a few of each. The answer I’ve gotten from them is “uh, sort of.”

The statute says “No person shall operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle or its operator is equipped with a lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front,” italics mine. Obviously, a headlamp would be attached to the operator. The challenge is that the light is intended to be seen 500 feet to the front. The light is really intended to function similarly to that of a headlamp on a motorcycle or headlights on a car: visible face forward.

When a helmet lamp is attached to a head, however, it may not always face forward. It may face to the side or another direction as you peer around. This is somewhat contrary to the point/language in the statute.

My sources say that a helmet lamp probably qualifies under statute, but that you’re probably better off with a light attached to the bike. This can be in addition to a headlamp. By having a light that is fixed to a forward-facing position, you may be able to avoid a lot of shenanigans in the event of an accident, particularly when dealing with an insurance company trying to prove something to be your fault for not complying with law.

Accident reconstruction agrees with me, per the Star-Tribune. The driver now has been charged with misdemeanors – failing to yield the right of way and disobeying a stop sign.

Now, misdemeanors are still pretty weak given the end result. Probably won’t even louse up the driver’s insurance record, save for whatever front fender work he needed post-crash. However, it’s at least an attempt at enforcement.

In each place where the inner service road meets the main throughway of Summit Avenue, there is a stop sign – for the service road. Summit is the ‘main’ road, and thus the only stops along Summit for a vehicle of traffic would be at the major crossings. The cyclist is almost undoubtedly not at fault in the crash described in the Strib – for all the good it does her.

Multiple sections of Minnesota Statute 169 pertain to right-of-way. Being not an officer of the law, or an expert in Minnesota laws as such, I can’t tell you which is especially applicable here. I doubt it’s 169.20, subdivision 4, a personal favorite of mine:

Subd. 4. Vehicle entering roadway. The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway
from any place other than a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on
the roadway to be entered or crossed.

Usually this is applied to things like alleyways, not service roads.

It’s far more likely that 169.20, Subd. 3 applies:

Subd. 3. Through highway; stop sign. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall stop as required by this chapter at the entrance to a through highway and shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles
which have entered the intersection from the through highway or which are approaching so closely
on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard, but the driver having so yielded may
proceed, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection on the through highway
shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicles so proceeding into or across the through highway.
(b) The driver of a vehicle shall likewise stop in obedience to a stop sign, as required herein,
at an intersection where a stop sign is erected at one or more entrances thereto although not a
part of a through highway, and shall proceed cautiously, yielding to vehicles not so obliged to
stop which are within the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate
hazard, but may then proceed.

Given the road configuration at the point of the crash, that St. Paul police do not seem to be at least ticketing the driver seems pretty insane. At a minimum, a ticket under the reckless driving statute (169.13) should be possible, even without witnesses. Again, totally not a legal expert, so this is speculation.

What I am, though, is a bicycle educator, and I do think this shows that education matters. Summit is a striped bikeway. There was a stop-sign for the driver, and the cyclist would have been in a legal through lane. There is no low shrubbery through there. Clearly, the SUV driver wasn’t paying attention.

Only education focused on watching for traffic on the road – including bicycle traffic – is really an answer to collisions such as this. How many motorists did you see on cell phones today? How many motorists did you see eating in their car, or putting on makeup at a light, or yelling at the kids in the back seat? None of these behaviors create safe roads for anyone.