Vermont’s idyllic byways have long lured bicyclists who enjoy the scenery and fresh air, usually without incident. But last year, tragedy struck — again and again. Between April 14 and September 7, cars hit and killed four cyclists on country roads in Weybridge, Hinesburg, Ferrisburgh and Pawlet. No cyclists had died in Vermont in the previous decade.
Suddenly, the state went from best to worst in national rankings for bicycle safety, said Emily Boedecker, executive director of Local Motion, a Burlington-based nonprofit promoting “people-powered transportation and recreation.”
The state’s biking community saw the worrisome escalation in fatalities as a sign that it was time to seek legislative remedies to address the long-standing tension between cyclists and motorists. As a result, the legislature is weighing several measures.
To reduce the risks that riders face, several cycling lawmakers have introduced a traffic-safety package that would clarify the rules of road sharing for motorists and so-called “vulnerable users” — that is, bicycles and pedestrians.
Most of the changes are in the transportation bill, which the House passed 124-19, including a mandate that motorists steer their cars and trucks at least four feet from bicyclists when passing. It says motorists negotiating driveways and turns are legally obligated to yield to passing cyclists. For violations, the bill proposes fines starting at $200.
Cyclists would also have added responsibilities. The bill requires bikes to stay on the right edge of roads, moving closer to the center only if conditions on shoulders are unsafe because of debris or cracked pavement. The bill also instructs bikers to use hand signals to warn drivers when they plan to turn or slow down — if they can do so safely.
State law already requires bikers to have lights for evening and night rides — white in front and red or a large reflective surface in the rear. The bill doesn’t add any new requirement for bikers to wear bright clothing. Many bikers do, but several said they don’t want to be forced to. “I would hate to see high-visibility clothes mandates,” said Roger Bombardier Jr., who pedals more than 3,000 miles a year commuting from Richmond to his information technology job at the University of Vermont.
The four-foot requirement for vehicles passing bikes is the most contentious provision in the House bill. It’s the law in one state — Pennsylvania — while 26 other states specify a three-foot buffer. Bombardier is in favor of the wider margin, noting that current law only requires drivers to exercise “due care” when passing a “vulnerable user,” without defining the term. “Some police interpreted that as meaning as long as a vehicle didn’t hit you, that was ‘due care,'” he said.
Senate Transportation Committee chair Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle) argues that the four-foot rule — or any other measurable buffer — would be impossible to enforce. He would prefer to enhance bike safety through education rather than overly prescriptive laws. The Senate has yet to vote on its version of the transportation bill, but Mazza’s views suggest there may be some bumps ahead.
Also in the House transportation bill is a proposed $16.7 million for bike and pedestrian projects and safety education efforts, $5 million more than the current year. The bulk of the increase — $4 million — is in funding for bike and pedestrian projects in 60 communities. They include planning and building bike paths, constructing sidewalks and widening lanes.
Another $20,000 enhances a traveling bike safety education program that Local Motion runs for children throughout the state. Boedecker said her organization’s Kohl’s Kids Bike Smart program reached 7,000 children last year. Local Motion also sponsored classes on “everyday bicycling” for 458 adults. During that same time period, the Vermont Highway Safety Alliance reported 72 crashes that injured cyclists and 21 involving only property damage.
If bike safety laws were to change, how would the state inform motorists? “The Department of Motor Vehicles is going to have to incorporate some re-education into their pamphlets,” said House Transportation Committee chair Patrick Brennan (R-Colchester).
Bombardier offered another idea: “Retesting drivers every decade on their vision and knowledge of new laws would help.”
Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, an avid cyclist and a race-car driver, wants to see education directed at bikers, not just drivers. “I’m on both sides of this,” he said, noting that he pedaled 4,500 miles last summer and put 35,000 miles on his vehicle crisscrossing the state.
Bikers need to take commonsense precautions, he said. “I ride defensively all the time,” he added.
Scott said bikers “create a lot of animosity” with drivers when they ride side-by-side in packs that bulge into travel lanes. Ditto when bikers blast through intersections without stopping. The lieutenant governor admitted those behaviors irk him when he’s behind the wheel.
On the other hand, Scott said, it would help if motorists “could just ride a few miles in somebody else’s seat.” Many motorists underestimate how fast bikes travel and cut them off when turning, he said, leading to collisions or frantic maneuvering by the cyclist. “And for those who don’t ride, it is hard to understand how dangerous riding on gravel can be,” Scott said, referring to road shoulders that are often covered with it.
Removing debris and other hazards such as sand and gravel from shoulders is a new priority for the Agency of Transportation, which maintains 3,200 miles of highway. And the agency is repairing more potholes and cracks in shoulders and widening roads — all with cyclists in mind, said Kevin Marshia, chief engineer in the highway division. “We have absolutely over the last decade changed our thinking,” he said.
The agency is in the midst of the three-stage VTrans On-Road Bicycle Plan to improve safety and better accommodate cyclists, whether they are commuters or recreational riders. The first stage, which has been completed, ranked roads based on current and potential bicycle use. The next phase will look at crash data and road conditions on high-priority corridors. The final step is to identify strategies to carry out the needed road improvements.
Those cyclist-friendly ugrades can’t come soon enough for Matt Boulanger of South Burlington, who commutes by bike to Williston, where he works as a planner. “I have been hit by a distracted driver, and I’ve had a lot of close calls and a handful of aggressive-driver situations,” he said. “I wear a camera when riding, because if I get injured or killed by a car and cannot speak for myself, I want there to be a record of what happened.”
While he acknowledged that infrastructure improvements — wider roads, separate bike lanes and devices such as speed bumps to slow vehicles — take time and lots of money, he praised the agency for moving in that direction: “The best bike infrastructure I use on my daily commute is a painted bike lane with no physical separation from the cars passing me at 45 mph.” It’s safer than nothing, he said, “but I’d challenge anybody to go ride that section of street during the morning rush hour and tell me they felt safe.”
Rep. Curt McCormack (D-Burling-ton), who serves on the House Transportation Committee, suggested that requiring bicyclists to pay a fee to register their bikes would help pay to fix some potholes. “It’s a way for bikers to be taken seriously,” he said, because they would be making an investment in the roads they ride — just as drivers do.
Scott dismissed that idea, arguing, “It would create a lot of bureaucracy for little return.”
However Vermont gets them, safe routes are vital to a growing number of Vermonters and tourists, according to Boedecker at Local Motion.
“We need to change our roads. We need to change our laws. And most important, we need to change our culture,” she said. “We need to think of our roads as our biggest shared space. We all have responsibility on our roads to be visible and respectful of each other.”
This article appears in The Money Issue April 2016 (Theme Issue).
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
To the comment from Rep. McCormack, about cyclists paying for roads; Most roads in Vermont (and in most parts of the US) are paid for out of general revenue funds that ALL tax payers (cyclists included) are paying into. It is a myth that gas taxes pay for most of the roads this has not been the case for decades, look it up. 80% of the road miles in Vermont are paid for cities and towns. I for one pay well over $6000 per year in property taxes. Most adult cyclists in Vermont, and elsewhere, pay to register, insure, gas, maintain and own cars as well as their bicycles. Sales tax alone on the two bicycles I own exceeded $200, to say nothing of the taxes on parts and accessories. Cyclists pay for these resources whether their cars are parked or being driven. So when I ride my bike to work instead of my car how about a refund on my registration fee for that day?
Further according to a 2011 report by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, gas taxes and other “user fees,” like automobile registration, fund only about half of the nation’s road expenses. The remaining costs are covered through general government funding. This means we all pay for our roads, whether we drive on them or not.
However bicycles are not damaging the roads at all compared to cars and trucks, plus cyclists are utilizing a lot less space on the road. The bicycle is the most efficient vehicle invented to date, more than 1000 times more efficient than the average car. Compare 200 pounds of rider and bicycle to 5000 – 60,000 pounds of vehicle depending on the vehicle.
I’ve heard people say, “If Vermont treated skiers the way we treat cyclists, the ski industry would collapse.” In addition to many other reasons cyclists are on the road (exercise, commuting, training for competitions such as the Olympics), many cyclists in Vermont are tourists who came here to enjoy our beautiful state. Keep in mind that they are bringing tourist dollars to the state, to hotels, restaurants, local shops, etc.
And if anyone wants to actually read some facts rather than spew myths about who pays for the roads: http://www.teamestrogen.com/pages/cycling-…
I doubt many people will actually read it, so let me summarize. Car drivers may pay more (cyclists, even if they don’t own a car, DO pay, because much of road maintenance is paid via property taxes), but car drivers cause wear and tear on roads at a much higher rate than bike riders. So actually, bike riders pay for a larger percentage of the wear and tear they cause – they pay for MORE of their fair share of the road costs.
The lack of vision in our legislature about the bicycling infrastructure never ceases to amaze. We, as Vermonters, have been given this gift of our incredible environment and relatively climate and terrain, and yet seem to be unable to take advantage of it to boost bicycle tourism.
We should be thinking like the Netherlands, not to mention Quebec and New York, in terms of building out our bike infrastructure coupled with sensible changes in laws, and additional education.
The oil won’t last forever, and the ski industry may not either…but we can bike to work and play for a long time to come, as long as we can feel safe doing it. Time to reprioritize!
I _very much_ dislike Seven Day’s characterization here: “The bill requires bikes to stay on the right edge of roads, moving closer to the center only if conditions on shoulders are unsafe because of debris or cracked pavement.”
§ 1139 ACTUALLY says “Bicyclists generally shall ride as near to the to the right side of the improved area of the highway right-of-way as is safe […] (2) May ride to the left or in a left lane when taking reasonably necessary precautions to avoid hazards or road conditions. Examples include objects on the road, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface conditions that may impair the bicyclist’s stability, or safety hazards caused by a narrow road or steep embankment, road geometry, or unfavorable atmospheric conditions.”.
Pay particular attention to “as is safe” and also “a narrow road”. Seriously. If the roadway is not wide enough to allow safe overtaking in lane when there is oncoming traffic in the other lane (e.g., 4′ clearance which implies a 15′ lane width) then the cyclist should control the lane to clearly communicate to the overtaking driver that they need to change lanes to safely pass. Otherwise a non-trivial minority of drivers will try to “squeeze by”.
http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Docu…
There are a lot of roads where biking just doesn’t seem safe, especially if bikers are going to ride in packs and at times three abreast. I wish I had a dollar for every time I saw a biker disregard traffic rules e.g., blow a stop sign, cross on a red light, drive against traffic, etc. Having bikers register their bikes would help hold them accountable for these actions but it would only solve part of the biker safety problem. There are a lot of drivers who just don’t heed to bikers as well.
Bottom line – whether you drive a truck car, scooter, motorcycle or bicycle – we are all responsible for our safety, and the safety of others, on the road each time we *choose* to take control of our wheels.
Where auto speeds are kept to no more than 30 mph, having bike lanes next to auto lanes is still do-able. When you get over that, the better solution is the one of the Netherlands, where the bike lane is physically separated from the roadway by several feet, and preferably a guard rail or lots of trees. The bike lane is in turn paved with a hard macadam surface, usually clay red, to provide both smooth riding and good light reflection.
None of this is hard to do. In rural areas, carving a bike lane six feet off the roadway is hardly impossible. The State does have to spend some bucks on “bike bridges” over streams, rather than forcing the cyclist to squeeze in over the existing narrow bridge (typically with no shoulder) and traffic doing 50. So you build a wooden trestle next to the road bridge sturdy enough to handle bicyclists and pedestrians, say out of 4 x 4 timber, and your problem is resolved.
Now, the State is not going to get there instantly. So for avid cyclists, there is still the electric bicycle, which I build here in Burlington, and even the electric motorcycle, which you can go buy from California for about $19,000. For less than 1/3 of that your electric bike will still get up to 43 mph and have a 40-mile range, yet has a 7-speed chain for pedalling if you wish. Wear a suit and tie and ride to work and back for a dime a day. Enjoy!
A camera on a bike is no good unless you have one on the back and the front. I say this because if you are hit from the rear the camera in the front will not record what hit you. If a vehicle turns in front of you then it will be recorded but not from the rear. But then again one camera is better than none.
Interesting–about seven men, no women comment. Only about 8% of Vermonters bike because in most downtowns, town centers and built up areas unlike many modern nations, America and Vermont have little to none (Burlington,none). Ditto for walking except for Manchester, Middlebury and Montpelier which now have town center roundabouts–the intersection safety belt. Thank you Nancy for the article.
Tony Redington TonyRVT.blogspot.com Member of Safe Streets Burlington
Seven male respondents–no women (except author Remsen). Over 90% do not/will not bike because US/Vermont urban areas have no safe infrastructure. Beginning to change (not yet in Chittenden County) with several downtowns/village centers with the intersection “safety belt” roundabout. Walk/bike fatalities climbing. Tony Redington of Safe Streets Burlington