m-bike.org » Law

Courts reduce road agency liability

Todd Scott — Thu, 03 May 2012 12:13:43 +0000

It’s already difficult to sue road agencies under state law for the quality of the road beneath your tires.

MCL 691.1402 GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE

Each governmental agency having jurisdiction over a highway shall maintain the highway in reasonable repair so that it is reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. A person who sustains bodily injury or damage to his or her property by reason of failure of a governmental agency to keep a highway under its jurisdiction in reasonable repair and in a condition reasonably safe and fit for travel may recover the damages suffered by him or her from the governmental agency. The liability, procedure, and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in section 21 of chapter IV of 1909 PA 283, MCL 224.21. Except as provided in section 2a, the duty of a governmental agency to repair and maintain highways, and the liability for that duty, extends only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and does not include sidewalks, trailways, crosswalks, or any other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel. A judgment against the state based on a claim arising under this section from acts or omissions of the state transportation department is payable only from restricted funds appropriated to the state transportation department or funds provided by its insurer.

Remember that in Michigan bicycles are not vehicles, therefore road agencies can’t be sued for defects in bike lanes or on paved shoulders.

That’s both good and bad. It’s good for countering road agencies arguments that bike lanes raise their liability. They don’t. In fact, they can reduce it. That’s not our opinion. That’s the opinion of the Michigan State Attorney General’s office.

The bad part is this lack of liability removes a motivating factor for keeping them well maintained. Then again, the roads aren’t in all that great a shape either.

Gravel doesn’t count

Last week the Michigan Supreme Court clarified the road liability a little more. They said the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) could not be sued for gravel that accumulated on a road. That gravel allegedly caused a motorcycle crash.

From the Spinal Column:

“Basically the law states that a defect must be in the traveled portion of the road and the higher courts interpretation is that it must be in the road bed itself and the gravel was simply a dusting on the surface of the road that you would see anywhere on a daily basis,” [RCOC attorney Paula] Reeves explained.

Michigan law established that if snow and ice are on a roadway, the RCOC is not liable for any damages. Subsequently the Supreme Court last week issued an opinion stating under Michigan Law the agency is not culpable in this incident since RCOC is responsible for keeping the roadway in “reasonable repair,” and loose gravel on a roadway does not fall under this definition.

“The courts took this logic and extended the law to apply to gravel,” Reeves noted.

This ruling could likely be applied to a bicyclist crashing on gravel in a vehicle travel lane.

Again, this is good and bad for the same reasons mentioned earlier.

However, if reducing the liability means more bike lanes, we’ll take it.

We’ll deal with the occasional gravel.

Rochester Hills doesn’t have some basic traffic ordinances

Todd Scott — Tue, 01 May 2012 11:34:22 +0000

This story started with a trip on the Clinton River Trail through Rochester Hills. The trail crosses Crooks Road midblock. There’s a stop sign for the trail users and a crosswalk, but no stop sign for road users.

There’s another sign for trail users: Cross traffic does not stop.

This is odd for two reasons. First, it’s not the intended use of this sign according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These signs are for two-way stops that users might mistake as four-way. That’s not the case here.

But secondly, road users are supposed to stop when a user is in the crosswalk. If you’re going to invest in signs, shouldn’t they tell the motorists to yield to those in the crosswalk?

Not in Rochester Hills

Most cities adopt the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in their city ordinances which includes a provision for motorists and other road users yielding to pedestrians.

Rochester Hills apparently forgot to include this. It appears as if it used to be in Article III of Chapter 98 according to one of the park ordinances. It’s not there now.

The Rochester Hills City Council did just update these ordinances and included the Michigan Vehicle Code, but they must have overlooked the Uniform Traffic Code. Or did they?

What does this mean?

In Michigan, the “rules of the road” have been divided between the Michigan Vehicle Code and the Uniform Traffic Code. Among many other rules, the Uniform Traffic Code includes:

Road users yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalks (Note that state law requires yielding to pedestrians and bicycles only when turning through a crosswalk.)
Prohibiting jaywalking and hitchhiking
Prohibiting littering on streets
Prohibiting driving on sidewalks
Requiring pedestrians to yield to vehicles outside of crosswalks
Requiring vehicle drivers to exercise due care around pedestrians, but especially children
Treating skateboarders, roller skaters, or in-line skaters as pedestrians and prohibiting them from roads

We’re not suggesting you try all these, but if you are struck by a car that fails to yield on a trail crossing in Rochester Hills, don’t expect city ordinances to help.

As for the rest of the Clinton River Trail, Auburn Hills, Pontiac, and Rochester have adopted the Uniform Traffic Code. Sylvan Lake has not.

Bicycles are not vehicles in Michigan

Todd Scott — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:03:23 +0000

The city of Ann Arbor web site says, “Ann Arbor and Michigan laws classify bicycles as vehicles and requires them to follow the rules of the road.”

That’s not correct.

Despite what you may read or hear, under state law bicycles are not vehicles in Michigan. Yes, this differs from some other states, but that is what Michigan law says.

And cities such as Ann Arbor adopt the state law definitions for vehicles and bicycles.

Not convinced? Here’s the state law:

257.79 “Vehicle” defined.

“Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and except, only for the purpose of titling and registration under this act, a mobile home as defined in section 2 of the mobile home commission act, Act No. 96 of the Public Acts of 1987, being section 125.2302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

We’ve highlighted the key point. If you’re human powered, you’re not a vehicle in Michigan.

There are many traffic types defined by state law. We’ve put together this graphic which shows the relationships between them.

Bicyclist rights to the road

If bicycles aren’t vehicles in Michigan, how are we granted access to most of the roads?

That’s handled by this state law:

257.657 Rights and duties of persons riding bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped or operating low-speed vehicle.

Each person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped or operating a low-speed vehicle upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to the provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.

Again, we’ve highlighted the key point. A driver is a person “in actual physical control of a vehicle.”

Bicyclists are do not have the same duties as an vehicle owner. We don’t need to register and license our bicycles with the state.

And as the definition shows, there are exceptions. As we’ve said before, those “same roads, same rights, same rules” stickers are simply wrong.

Why can bicycles ride on sidewalks?

It is against most Michigan municipal ordinances to drive vehicles on sidewalks under the Uniform Traffic Codes. So why isn’t bicycling always illegal on sidewalks?

State law makes an exception:

257.660c Operation of bicycle upon sidewalk or pedestrian crosswalk.

(1) An individual operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.

(2) An individual shall not operate a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk if that operation is prohibited by an official traffic control device.

(3) An individual lawfully operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk has all of the rights and responsibilities applicable to a pedestrian using that sidewalk or crosswalk.

Of course municipalities can locally prohibit bicycles from sidewalks.

This leads into another subject. The false notion that bicycles can impede traffic while operating legally.

That’s something we’ll cover in a future post.

Legislation would eliminate 1% bike/walk funding

Todd Scott — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:34:29 +0000

A group of bills were introduced in Lansing earlier this year that change how Michigan generates and distributes road funding.

These bills as written have many opponents. Bicyclists, pedestrians, trail users, and Complete Street supporters should be among them.

Here are three reasons.

Eliminates bike funding requirement

First, House Bill 5300 would transfer funding from the current Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) to the Commercial Corridor Fund (CCF) over an 8 year period. The MTF and CCF distribute funds to counties, cities, and villages. The MTF requires 1% of the funding to be spent on non-motorized facilities like bike lanes and sidewalks. The CCF has no such requirement.

So rather than remove the 1% requirement in law, legislators are simply creating a new fund without the requirement and shifting the money. We’re not sure how intentional this change was, but it has been a long standing goal of the County Road Association of Michigan to remove this requirement.

Increases funding for sprawl

The current road funding is generally distributed based on the miles of roads. House Bill 5303 would change that to distribute funding based on motor vehicle miles traveled or VMT.

Counties and cities that require people to drive more and longer distances will be rewarded. There will be a financial disincentive for counties and cities to promote public transit, biking and walking as they’ll receive less money.

Forecasts from MDOT show the city of Detroit would see some devastating funding cuts as a result. Even if the fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are raised significantly, the City will still lose 8% of their road funding. And since those tax and fee increases may not even occur, the loss will be even greater. The City has already testified against this change.

Ironically enough, the bill’s sponsor is former City Councilwoman Alberta Tinsley-Talabi.

Promotes speeding

Granted this is the weaker of the three sins, but it deserves a mention for its sheer stupidity.

House Bills 5301 and 5302 require counties, cities, and villages to time traffic lights but not for the speed limit. On a road that has enough speeding cars, this legislation requires road agencies to time the traffic lights for them, which will likely induce more speeding.

We’ve already heard of MDOT doing this on a local state trunkline. Now this practice will be enshrined in law.

Recommended action

We recommend you contact your state representative and state senator to let them know you oppose removing the 1% requirement and oppose distributing road funds according to vehicle miles traveled.

These bills have been out for more than a couple months now. We can’t afford to keep sitting on the sidelines.

With ever rising fuel prices and increasing public interest in Complete Streets, it is unacceptable that we change road funding that takes us back to the 1970s mind set.

Combining County boards and road commissions

Todd Scott — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:05:37 +0000

Governor Rick Snyder said back in October that he’d like to reduce the size of government by allowing counties to manage roads. He called road commissions “unneeded.”

We agree. As we’ve mentioned before, by default counties cannot manage roads. That must be handled by a separate county government called a road commission. It’s archaic and not cost effective.

House Bills 5125 and 5126 will make it possible to consolidate these separate county governments. While both the House and Senate have passed variations of the bill, the House must approve of the Senate’s legislative changes.

According to a Detroit News article:

The Michigan House has approved measures that would allow county boards of commissioners to take over the powers and duties of county road commissions.

Appointed county road commissions could be dissolved by a majority vote of a county’s board of commissioners. Voters would have the final decision on whether to dissolve road commissions in counties where road commissioners are elected.

Ingham County is looking to absorb their road commission. Macomb and Wayne Counties went through the onerous county charter process which let them absorb their road commissions earlier.

What about Oakland County?

The Spinal Column has thorough coverage on this topic.

“(Oakland County Executive L.) Brooks (Patterson) has no desire to take us over, and if anyone studies the issue, they wouldn’t want to,” [RCOC Spokesperson Craig] Bryson said. We don’t think there would be an immediate response, but there could be in the future.”

One conclusion from reading the article is that some government officials are against it and willing to make rather outlandish claims as to why.

Bryson claims it “By moving the jurisdiction to the counties, it forces counties to raise property taxes to fund roads.” Not true. Roads are paid for through a separate funding stream. If this were the case, why would tax-averse Macomb County absorb their road commission?

County Commissioner Jim Runestad said,”In Oakland County, if (the county board) were to take over the RCOC, it would be highly politicized and the politics would weigh in on every decision.” Every decision? Is that what happens now at the local, state, and federal levels, all of which manage roads without a separate governmental body? Of course not.

The current system of electing Oakland County road commissioners is highly political. The Republican majority chooses a road commissioner every couple years and controls the process. It’s a separate county government that’s fully controlled by the Republican majority, and that is the likely reason why the Road Commission for Oakland County will continue in the near future.

Commissioner Runestead told the Spinal Column, “If there was a change in leadership on the county board, the RCOC’s days could be numbered.”

Detroit looks to make biking legal on RiverWalk

Todd Scott — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:16:18 +0000

It’s legal to ride your bike on most of the Detroit RiverWalk except for the portion in front of Hart Plaza.

Why? Because of this city ordinance:

Sec. 40-4-7. – Wheeled vehicles prohibited.

No wheelbarrow, handcart, automobile, motorcycle, bicycle, motordriven cycle, go-cart, unicycle, moped, solex cycle or other wheeled vehicles are permitted in Hart Plaza except as approved by the civic center department or recreation department for a scheduled event. This section shall not apply to a handicapped person in a wheelchair nor to emergency or service vehicles.

It’s a little policy issue we shared with our wonky friends, but it wasn’t a big problem on the RiverWalk since it wasn’t enforced.

Apparently it’s more of big deal now because the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy will soon maintain that portion of the RiverWalk. Currently the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) maintains the RiverWalk from the Port Authority to Joe Louis Arena. The Detroit Recreation Department is developing a maintenance agreement for the Conservancy to take the reins.

The Recreation Department is asking City Council to change the ordinance’s definition of Hart Plaza to not include the RiverWalk. They said it would be the “most direct and expedient resolution.”

Doing this solves the bicycling issue and others. For example, it’s also not legal to walk your dog or roller skate on this section of RiverWalk.

We’d rather the ordinance not restrict bicycles (or unicycles!) in all of Hart Plaza except during events, but the above proposal is a step in the right direction.

We do have to wonder why solex cycles were called out in the ordinance.

Possible changes for Michigan road funding

Todd Scott — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:23:52 +0000

Here are just three potential changes which could greatly affect road funding — including bike funding — throughout Michigan.

The Good

According to Crain’s Detroit Business, Governor Rick Synder will call for changes to how Michigan collects tax revenues on motor vehicle fuel. Rather than collect a fixed amount per gallon sold at the pump, he is proposing a percent rate on the wholesale fuel cost. While it won’t raise taxes initially, the total taxes collected will increase with inflation and fuel price increases.

It makes sense to us.

Getting the state legislature to increase the fuel tax, something that hasn’t happened in 14 years, is difficult. The Governor’s proposal removes the need to vote on any tax increases.

The Bad

According to the Spinal Column newspaper, State Senator Howard Walker, a Republican from Traverse City, also wants to eliminate fuel taxes at the pump. He wants to replace the lost tax funding by raising the state sales tax by 1%.

That’s right. Rather than have motorists pay for roads, everyone would.

Those who drive more, say perhaps people in northern parts of the state, would pay less for their roads while those who drive less or not at all would pick up the tab. This proposal would subsidize driving more than we already do.

According to a recent national study, only 51% of road costs are paid by road users. This drop that percentage further with the difference coming from general tax sources.

The Ugly

The Washington Post has this article outlining the very real possibility that Transportation Enhancement funding could be stripped from the next federal transportation bill — or at least made optional at the state level. Enhancements represents about 2% of the total transportation bill.

Losing Transportation Enhancement funding would be devastating to bike facilities development in Michigan and across the U.S..

This is a primary source of funding for on-road improvements, like the 16 miles of new bike lanes in Southwest Detroit. This funding also supports trail development such as the Detroit RiverWalk and Dequindre Cut. And finally, it’s also used for streetscaping which improves walkability while often providing bike parking.

While cyclists and others have banded together to fight off prior attacks on this funding, times are different.

Please contact your Congressperson to let them know we cannot lose Transportation Enhancements.

Time to combine county government with road commission

Todd Scott — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:18:28 +0000

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is delivering his message on infrastructure and transportation next Wednesday.

Of course we want him to support multi-modal investments and complete streets.

We also want him to discuss Michigan’s interesting arrangement where county road commissions are in nearly all cases separate from county government.

We recently wrote the Governor and included the following thought:

Under Michigan’s unified form and general law county governments can manage parks, human services, health departments, airports, sewers, water supply, refuge collection, lake improvements, and libraries — but not roads. This means we have to have a separate county government just for roads, Having two governments with similar departments (e.g. law, planning, environmental) is redundant and wasteful. Requiring a county charter to eliminate this waste is not an easy solution.

Road Commissions were established in 1894 and based on Bay County’s Stone Road District of 1883. It’s time to move into the twenty-first century by changing state laws to allow the consolidation of county government and road commissions. ACT 51 should provide financial incentives to counties that consolidate in this manner.

Based on an earlier Detroit News article, he might be considering pushing for such consolidations.

Snyder is expected to call for efficiencies and reforms, including performance-measuring “dashboards” and simplified financial statements he has demanded from state and local governments. The governor also wants to encourage consolidation and is examining whether a regional approach to local roads makes sense, sources said.

What does that mean to cyclists? Consolidation can save transportation money while also bringing greater accountability to the public. If a county is not building complete streets, cyclists should be able to contact their elected county commissioners to demand change.

Regional approaches would be a benefit as well. It’s difficult advocating for bicycling facilities among the many dozens of road agencies across Metro Detroit. Having fewer would make that easier while producing more consistent results.

And regional approaches mean bike lanes would less likely end at a city’s borders.

Bicyclists don’t pay their share of road taxes

Todd Scott — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:08:15 +0000

Some have vehemently claimed that bicyclists don’t pay road taxes and therefore shouldn’t benefit from good roads. Oh, and cyclists are arrogant.

Sounds like 2011? Try 1893.

The Michigan Legislature was about to pass the County Road Law which, upon a vote of the people, would amend the State Constitution to allow counties to levy taxes and construct roads. Some anti-tax farmers from Genesee, Michigan would have no part of that. [Ed. emphasis ours]

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan:

We, the undersigned, farmers of the county of Genesee, Michigan, learning that there is a bill now before your honorable body the object of which is to repeal our present system of highway laws and enact in its stead laws making all highway taxes payable in cash, thereby depriving us of the privilege of paying a portion of our taxes in labor, and looking to large and expensive improvements on the highways of this State, would most respectfully and earnestly remonstrate against the passage of such an act. We as a class feel that our present system is sufficient for all practical purposes, and being a class of citizens upon whom the taxes of our State fall most heavily, do most earnestly protest against the passage of this or any other law that will tend to increase the taxes of the hard worked and already tax-burdened farmer, for the benefit, as it appears to us, of a comparative few non-taxpaying, arrogant wheelmen. And your petitioners will ever pray.

Linden March 2, 1893

The farmers didn’t win the argument. County Road Law of 1893 passed and the people amended the Michigan Constitution in 1894. This law was passed with leadership from the Good Roads movement, including Detroit bicyclist Edward N. Hines.

And as for today’s cyclists, yes, they do pay their share of taxes for roads. A recent Pew Charitable Trust study found that fuel taxes and vehicle license fees paid for 51% of road costs. The remaining 49% comes from other sources such a general funds and millages, which cyclists pay. That doesn’t include the external costs of motor vehicles which is borne by the general population.

Arrogant cyclists? Some. Freeloaders? Not at all.

Further Reading: The History of Roads in Michigan

Detroit cyclist gets a ticket and possible child endangerment charges

Todd Scott — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:46:43 +0000

On September 2nd, Sean Harrington biked to the Detroit RiverWalk with his twin sons in a bike trailer. On the way home, he took the sidewalk north on Park Avenue, which is a one way side street heading south.

When pedestrians and construction scaffolding blocked the sidewalk, he rode on the road for about four car lengths.

That was apparently too much for Detroit Police who issued Harrington a $110 ticket and now may face charges of child endangerment.

What’s even more ridiculous is Park Avenue is a very low volume road. A 2005 study found an average of 280 cars per day on this section of road, which is lower than most residential neighborhood streets. North bound Clifford just west of Park carries ten times more traffic, and Woodward even more still.

Impeding vehicle traffic? Seriously?

This story has gotten a great deal of press locally (Free Press, Crains, mLive, ClickOnDetroit) and is starting to get some national attention as well.

MyFoxDetroit’s coverage includes this video which helps highlight the ridiculousness of this story.

Father Charged with Child Neglect after Bike Ride: MyFoxDETROIT.com

m-bike.org » Law

Courts reduce road agency liability

Gravel doesn’t count

Related Posts

Rochester Hills doesn’t have some basic traffic ordinances

Not in Rochester Hills

What does this mean?

Related Posts

Bicycles are not vehicles in Michigan

Bicyclist rights to the road

Why can bicycles ride on sidewalks?

Related Posts

Legislation would eliminate 1% bike/walk funding

Eliminates bike funding requirement

Increases funding for sprawl

Promotes speeding

Recommended action

Related Posts

Combining County boards and road commissions

What about Oakland County?

Related Posts

Detroit looks to make biking legal on RiverWalk

Related Posts

Possible changes for Michigan road funding

The Good

The Bad

The Ugly

Related Posts

Time to combine county government with road commission

Related Posts

Bicyclists don’t pay their share of road taxes

Related Posts

Detroit cyclist gets a ticket and possible child endangerment charges

Related Posts