Frequently Asked Questions

General Questions

Why do you call the campaign to pass House Bill 88 "One Road"?

First, One Road sounds better than "the campaign to pass House Bill 88." Second, it makes for a great logo. Most importantly, it carries the message that we all share one road regardless of our chosen mode of transportation. The actions of each road user affect the safety of other road users nearby.

How did the One Road campaign start?

In July 2007 Bicycling for Louisville hosted a workshop for bicycle and pedestrian advocates, led by trainers from Thunderhead Alliance for Bicycling and Walking. Earlier that month, experienced bicycle commuter George "Chips" Cronen, Jr. was killed four blocks from our office by a motorist who struck him from behind in broad daylight. Even though the police accident report noted driver inattention as the cause of the crash, no charges were filed. We had seen similar circumstances before: bicyclist or pedestrian injured or killed; motorist evidently at fault; no charges filed; no public accountability for the person who caused the crash. In our outrage over these needless deaths and injuries, we decided to push for laws to hold reckless drivers accountable for hitting bicyclists and pedestrians.

Who supports One Road / HB 88?

AARP of Kentucky, recognizing the needs of seniors for safe non-motorized mobility options, supports House Bill 88. Bicycle advocacy leaders and club cyclists from across Kentucky have expressed their support. Louisville-based Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation (CART) supports One Road. We hope soon to announce the support of statewide environmental and social justice organizations. If your organization would like to endorse HB 88, click here.

In simple terms, what would HB 88 do to benefit Kentucky bicyclists and pedestrians?

First, HB 88 defines a new crime, vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian. This crime involves a vehicle striking a pedestrian or bicyclist due to recklessness on the part of the vehicle operator.

Second, HB 88 empowers law enforcement officers to cite or arrest drivers for that crime on the basis of "probable cause." Probable cause means reason to believe that the suspect committed that crime - typically, physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. Under the new law, a police officer could arrive at the scene of a crash, interview witnesses and examine evidence and, if appropriate, cite a driver for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian. Without this law, the police can't cite the motorist for a non-felony, non-DUI violation even with eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and a video recording of the crash!

People who cause crashes can already get sued. How will a tougher criminal law improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists?

As best we understand the situation, most drivers at fault for hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist suffer either no consequence (beyond any remorse they might feel) or endure some inconvenience while their insurer wrangles with the victim over compensation, potentially resulting in the driver having to pay higher auto insurance premiums. Even if the victim wins a lawsuit in court, the suit will take from 2-4 years to finish and the at-fault driver will often be protected by her or his insurer from paying any large lump sum damage award. More commonly, the driver's insurer and the victim will settle out of court. Even if the driver carries the required insurance (and many don't), the minimum bodily injury liability insurance coverage in Kentucky is $25,000 - much less than the medical costs of many crash injuries. This results in many cases in which the injured party receives a settlement inadequate to recoup medical costs, let alone lost income or abilities. In a typical scenario, the injured innocent bicyclist or pedestrian faces weeks or months of suffering and disability starting at the moment of the crash and the guilty vehicle operator merely faces higher insurance premiums starting some months later. This doesn't seem fair.

Equally importantly, this system does not influence anyone to drive more carefully. Nobody stands around the break room at the office saying, "Omigosh! Did you hear that George's auto premiums went up by $60 a month after he hit that pedestrian!" If George had faced criminal prosecution for hitting that pedestrian, you can bet that some of his friends and family members and coworkers and people who heard news reports about the case would think, "Ouch! I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes." That "ouch!" reaction, combined with some public education on crash causes and consequences, could lead to safer driving - our primary objective.

In criminal prosecution, the state asserts that the alleged behavior (such as recklessly striking a pedestrian or bicyclist) deserves punishment. Criminal prosecution makes news and sends an important message to the public: this behavior is unacceptable. A civil action (lawsuit), on the other hand, involves one person attempting to recover damages from another. Civil suits over traffic crashes rarely receive media coverage or comment from public officials. Many suits settle out of court and the settlements remain confidential, guaranteeing that they will not affect public attitudes. Civil suits are not meant to influence the behavior of the community at large, and they usually don't. Prosecution, on the other hand, often includes public statements by the prosecutor that "We are cracking down on this behavior for the good of the community."

Will HB 88 do anything besides defining vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian?

HB 88 includes two other provisions. It defines "bicycle," which now has no definition in the statutes. It also clarifies where bicyclists may ride within a travel lane by listing exceptions to the general rule of riding as far to the right as practicable. In keeping with the Uniform Vehicle Code (a model code used as the basis of traffic laws in many states), it says that bicyclists may ride farther to the left to prepare for a left turn, to avoid surface hazards or obstacles including people and animals, and when riding in lanes too narrow to allow a car to pass safely without changing lanes. HB 88 defines that narrow lane as any lane less than 13 feet wide. In other words, HB 88 would clearly give bicyclists in Kentucky the right to ride in the middle of narrow lanes - most of the lanes in Kentucky in which we may legally ride.

HB 88 focuses on strengthening legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians. Does it do anything to benefit motorists?

Yes. By providing enforceable penalties for recklessly hitting bicyclists and pedestrians, HB 88 will encourage more cautious driving. The cautious driving needed to avoid hitting bicyclists and pedestrians will naturally reduce collisions between motor vehicles. By protecting the most vulnerable road users, HB 88 will make the roads safer for everyone.

What can I do to help pass HB 88?

Thanks for asking! Send us an email to see what's up this week. Or visit the advocacy page.

Legal Questions

What do you mean by "reckless"?

By law (KRS 501.020), reckless means a combination of two things: failing to perceive a significant and unjustifiable risk and, in so doing, grossly deviating from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in that situation. Driving a few mph over the speed limit, for example, would not automatically meet the definition of recklessness. Continuing to drive at over the speed limit while dozens of children crossed the street a half-block ahead probably would constitute recklessness, because any reasonable driver under those circumstances would recognize the significant and unjustifiable risk of hitting a child if the driver did not slow the car.

Would this new law penalize drivers involved in crashes when the bicyclist or pedestrian did something stupid or illegal?

No, unless the driver's own recklessness contributed to causing the crash. If a driver obeying the traffic laws hit a bicyclist who darted out from a driveway a short distance ahead, the driver would not risk penalty under the proposed law. If the driver hit the darting bicyclist while looking into the back seat to grab a snack, the driver might face a penalty under this law. A jury might decide that driving while peering into the back seat indeed crossed the line into recklessness.

Does the proposed law distinguish between crashes that result in a victim's death and those that result in no injury?

HB 88 sets forth three levels of penalties for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian, depending on the severity of injury to the victim:

no injury - Class B misdemeanor (less than 90 days imprisonment)
physical injury less severe than a serious physical injury - Class A misdemeanor (90 days - 1 year imprisonment)
serious physical injury or death - Class D felony (1-5 years imprisonment).

KRS 500.080 defines "physical injury" (e.g., a broken arm) and "severe physical injury" (e.g., a spinal cord injury).

Under Kentucky law, a bicycle is a vehicle. If a bicyclist hit another bicyclist or a pedestrian, could the at-fault bicyclist be prosecuted for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian?

Yes, but only if the bicyclist caused the crash through recklessness (see above).

Several states have reformed their traffic codes to improve pedestrian or bicycle safety. Why doesn't HB 88 include a 3-foot minimum passing distance, or better protections for pedestrians in crosswalks, or stricter penalties for driving on a suspended license, or ...?

After listening to advice from lawyers, experienced lobbyists, and legislators, we focused on developing a short, simple bill with a single focus. This sort of bill has a better chance of passing than would a broader, more complex bill. Every part of HB 88 contributes to the goal of providing prosecutors and police with better tools for holding accountable reckless drivers who hit pedestrians or bicyclists. We hope to win passage of HB 88 and build on that success to address other bicycling and walking issues in future bills.

How does the proposed change in KRS 189.300 (regarding where bicyclists may ride within a travel lane) contribute to the bill's purpose of strengthening the rights of bicyclists hit by other vehicle operators?

This change will help to ensure that a driver would not get off the hook for hitting a bicyclist merely because the bicyclist was not hugging the edge of the road at the time of the crash. The current standard, "as far to the right as practicable," does not give us clear legal protection in the many circumstances in which it is safer to ride elsewhere than the right edge of the lane.

Don't existing laws already protect bicyclists and pedestrians hit by reckless drivers?

This question has different answers for fatal and for non-fatal crashes. In crashes that kill pedestrians or bicyclists, reckless homicide (KRS 507.050) appears applicable. We believe that reckless homicide charges ought to have applied in some recent cases of motorists killing bicyclists and pedestrians in greater Louisville. Unfortunately, we have not heard of any reckless homicide prosecutions in car-bicycle or car-pedestrian crashes not involving drugs, alcohol, or another crime (say, fleeing from a bank robbery). We guess that prosecutors lack confidence that they can win a conviction for reckless homicide in cases not involving circumstances such as intoxication that reduce jurors' sympathy for the driver. In other words, the current law applies in theory but rarely in practice.

In most non-fatal crashes not involving intoxication, no existing felony charge appears to apply. The existing misdemeanor charges rarely help, because law enforcement officers cannot cite or arrest drivers for them without having witnessed the infraction.

Only a small fraction of dangerous driving behaviors qualify as recklessness. Why bother writing and lobbying for a bill that fixes only a small part of the problem?

We considered seeking a law that would empower law enforcement officers to issue citations on the basis of probable cause for any crash-causing traffic infraction, but received uniformly negative responses from lawyers and police officials. They feared that allowing officers to issue citations for a large number of incidents not witnessed by the officers would likely result in a a large number of cases that would not hold up in court. This would increase delays and costs in an already overbooked and financially strapped court system, as well as causing stress and inconvenience for innocent drivers mistakenly charged by officers in the field. Defining the new offense in terms of recklessness will greatly limit inappropriate prosecutions and inappropriate exercise of power by officers. We believe that vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian, as defined in HB 88, will nonetheless apply to many of the egregious cases of deadly driving that currently go without prosecution.

The vast majority of injury crashes of vehicles with bicyclists or pedestrians are accidental, even if they involve negligence on the part of the vehicle operator. Why criminalize negligent driving when the civil law system exists to address issues of negligence?

Though drivers rarely mean to hit anyone, many crashes result from choices made by the drivers. The crash was accidental, but the reckless passing or text-messaging while driving or excessive speed that caused the crash was intentional. To achieve safer roads, the state must make unmistakably clear that we no longer tolerate reckless driving. Passing and enforcing HB 88 will convey that vehicle operators bear responsibility for their negligent actions that harm others. HB 88 will provide much-needed swiftness, public accountability, and the peril of possible criminal penalties. These will provide the backbone for effective efforts to improve driving behavior.


	Frequently Asked Questions General Questions Why do you call the campaign to pass House Bill 88 "One Road"? First, One Road sounds better than "the campaign to pass House Bill 88." Second, it makes for a great logo. Most importantly, it carries the message that we all share one road regardless of our chosen mode of transportation. The actions of each road user affect the safety of other road users nearby. How did the One Road campaign start? In July 2007 Bicycling for Louisville hosted a workshop for bicycle and pedestrian advocates, led by trainers from Thunderhead Alliance for Bicycling and Walking. Earlier that month, experienced bicycle commuter George "Chips" Cronen, Jr. was killed four blocks from our office by a motorist who struck him from behind in broad daylight. Even though the police accident report noted driver inattention as the cause of the crash, no charges were filed. We had seen similar circumstances before: bicyclist or pedestrian injured or killed; motorist evidently at fault; no charges filed; no public accountability for the person who caused the crash. In our outrage over these needless deaths and injuries, we decided to push for laws to hold reckless drivers accountable for hitting bicyclists and pedestrians. Who supports One Road / HB 88? AARP of Kentucky, recognizing the needs of seniors for safe non-motorized mobility options, supports House Bill 88. Bicycle advocacy leaders and club cyclists from across Kentucky have expressed their support. Louisville-based Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation (CART) supports One Road. We hope soon to announce the support of statewide environmental and social justice organizations. If your organization would like to endorse HB 88, click here. In simple terms, what would HB 88 do to benefit Kentucky bicyclists and pedestrians? First, HB 88 defines a new crime, vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian. This crime involves a vehicle striking a pedestrian or bicyclist due to recklessness on the part of the vehicle operator. Second, HB 88 empowers law enforcement officers to cite or arrest drivers for that crime on the basis of "probable cause." Probable cause means reason to believe that the suspect committed that crime - typically, physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. Under the new law, a police officer could arrive at the scene of a crash, interview witnesses and examine evidence and, if appropriate, cite a driver for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian. Without this law, the police can't cite the motorist for a non-felony, non-DUI violation even with eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, and a video recording of the crash! People who cause crashes can already get sued. How will a tougher criminal law improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists? As best we understand the situation, most drivers at fault for hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist suffer either no consequence (beyond any remorse they might feel) or endure some inconvenience while their insurer wrangles with the victim over compensation, potentially resulting in the driver having to pay higher auto insurance premiums. Even if the victim wins a lawsuit in court, the suit will take from 2-4 years to finish and the at-fault driver will often be protected by her or his insurer from paying any large lump sum damage award. More commonly, the driver's insurer and the victim will settle out of court. Even if the driver carries the required insurance (and many don't), the minimum bodily injury liability insurance coverage in Kentucky is $25,000 - much less than the medical costs of many crash injuries. This results in many cases in which the injured party receives a settlement inadequate to recoup medical costs, let alone lost income or abilities. In a typical scenario, the injured innocent bicyclist or pedestrian faces weeks or months of suffering and disability starting at the moment of the crash and the guilty vehicle operator merely faces higher insurance premiums starting some months later. This doesn't seem fair. Equally importantly, this system does not influence anyone to drive more carefully. Nobody stands around the break room at the office saying, "Omigosh! Did you hear that George's auto premiums went up by $60 a month after he hit that pedestrian!" If George had faced criminal prosecution for hitting that pedestrian, you can bet that some of his friends and family members and coworkers and people who heard news reports about the case would think, "Ouch! I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes." That "ouch!" reaction, combined with some public education on crash causes and consequences, could lead to safer driving - our primary objective. In criminal prosecution, the state asserts that the alleged behavior (such as recklessly striking a pedestrian or bicyclist) deserves punishment. Criminal prosecution makes news and sends an important message to the public: this behavior is unacceptable. A civil action (lawsuit), on the other hand, involves one person attempting to recover damages from another. Civil suits over traffic crashes rarely receive media coverage or comment from public officials. Many suits settle out of court and the settlements remain confidential, guaranteeing that they will not affect public attitudes. Civil suits are not meant to influence the behavior of the community at large, and they usually don't. Prosecution, on the other hand, often includes public statements by the prosecutor that "We are cracking down on this behavior for the good of the community." Will HB 88 do anything besides defining vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian? HB 88 includes two other provisions. It defines "bicycle," which now has no definition in the statutes. It also clarifies where bicyclists may ride within a travel lane by listing exceptions to the general rule of riding as far to the right as practicable. In keeping with the Uniform Vehicle Code (a model code used as the basis of traffic laws in many states), it says that bicyclists may ride farther to the left to prepare for a left turn, to avoid surface hazards or obstacles including people and animals, and when riding in lanes too narrow to allow a car to pass safely without changing lanes. HB 88 defines that narrow lane as any lane less than 13 feet wide. In other words, HB 88 would clearly give bicyclists in Kentucky the right to ride in the middle of narrow lanes - most of the lanes in Kentucky in which we may legally ride. HB 88 focuses on strengthening legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians. Does it do anything to benefit motorists? Yes. By providing enforceable penalties for recklessly hitting bicyclists and pedestrians, HB 88 will encourage more cautious driving. The cautious driving needed to avoid hitting bicyclists and pedestrians will naturally reduce collisions between motor vehicles. By protecting the most vulnerable road users, HB 88 will make the roads safer for everyone. What can I do to help pass HB 88? Thanks for asking! Send us an email to see what's up this week. Or visit the advocacy page. Legal Questions What do you mean by "reckless"? By law (KRS 501.020), reckless means a combination of two things: failing to perceive a significant and unjustifiable risk and, in so doing, grossly deviating from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in that situation. Driving a few mph over the speed limit, for example, would not automatically meet the definition of recklessness. Continuing to drive at over the speed limit while dozens of children crossed the street a half-block ahead probably would constitute recklessness, because any reasonable driver under those circumstances would recognize the significant and unjustifiable risk of hitting a child if the driver did not slow the car. Would this new law penalize drivers involved in crashes when the bicyclist or pedestrian did something stupid or illegal? No, unless the driver's own recklessness contributed to causing the crash. If a driver obeying the traffic laws hit a bicyclist who darted out from a driveway a short distance ahead, the driver would not risk penalty under the proposed law. If the driver hit the darting bicyclist while looking into the back seat to grab a snack, the driver might face a penalty under this law. A jury might decide that driving while peering into the back seat indeed crossed the line into recklessness. Does the proposed law distinguish between crashes that result in a victim's death and those that result in no injury? HB 88 sets forth three levels of penalties for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian, depending on the severity of injury to the victim: no injury - Class B misdemeanor (less than 90 days imprisonment) physical injury less severe than a serious physical injury - Class A misdemeanor (90 days - 1 year imprisonment) serious physical injury or death - Class D felony (1-5 years imprisonment). KRS 500.080 defines "physical injury" (e.g., a broken arm) and "severe physical injury" (e.g., a spinal cord injury). Under Kentucky law, a bicycle is a vehicle. If a bicyclist hit another bicyclist or a pedestrian, could the at-fault bicyclist be prosecuted for vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian? Yes, but only if the bicyclist caused the crash through recklessness (see above). Several states have reformed their traffic codes to improve pedestrian or bicycle safety. Why doesn't HB 88 include a 3-foot minimum passing distance, or better protections for pedestrians in crosswalks, or stricter penalties for driving on a suspended license, or ...? After listening to advice from lawyers, experienced lobbyists, and legislators, we focused on developing a short, simple bill with a single focus. This sort of bill has a better chance of passing than would a broader, more complex bill. Every part of HB 88 contributes to the goal of providing prosecutors and police with better tools for holding accountable reckless drivers who hit pedestrians or bicyclists. We hope to win passage of HB 88 and build on that success to address other bicycling and walking issues in future bills. How does the proposed change in KRS 189.300 (regarding where bicyclists may ride within a travel lane) contribute to the bill's purpose of strengthening the rights of bicyclists hit by other vehicle operators? This change will help to ensure that a driver would not get off the hook for hitting a bicyclist merely because the bicyclist was not hugging the edge of the road at the time of the crash. The current standard, "as far to the right as practicable," does not give us clear legal protection in the many circumstances in which it is safer to ride elsewhere than the right edge of the lane. Don't existing laws already protect bicyclists and pedestrians hit by reckless drivers? This question has different answers for fatal and for non-fatal crashes. In crashes that kill pedestrians or bicyclists, reckless homicide (KRS 507.050) appears applicable. We believe that reckless homicide charges ought to have applied in some recent cases of motorists killing bicyclists and pedestrians in greater Louisville. Unfortunately, we have not heard of any reckless homicide prosecutions in car-bicycle or car-pedestrian crashes not involving drugs, alcohol, or another crime (say, fleeing from a bank robbery). We guess that prosecutors lack confidence that they can win a conviction for reckless homicide in cases not involving circumstances such as intoxication that reduce jurors' sympathy for the driver. In other words, the current law applies in theory but rarely in practice. In most non-fatal crashes not involving intoxication, no existing felony charge appears to apply. The existing misdemeanor charges rarely help, because law enforcement officers cannot cite or arrest drivers for them without having witnessed the infraction. Only a small fraction of dangerous driving behaviors qualify as recklessness. Why bother writing and lobbying for a bill that fixes only a small part of the problem? We considered seeking a law that would empower law enforcement officers to issue citations on the basis of probable cause for any crash-causing traffic infraction, but received uniformly negative responses from lawyers and police officials. They feared that allowing officers to issue citations for a large number of incidents not witnessed by the officers would likely result in a a large number of cases that would not hold up in court. This would increase delays and costs in an already overbooked and financially strapped court system, as well as causing stress and inconvenience for innocent drivers mistakenly charged by officers in the field. Defining the new offense in terms of recklessness will greatly limit inappropriate prosecutions and inappropriate exercise of power by officers. We believe that vehicular assault of a bicyclist or pedestrian, as defined in HB 88, will nonetheless apply to many of the egregious cases of deadly driving that currently go without prosecution. The vast majority of injury crashes of vehicles with bicyclists or pedestrians are accidental, even if they involve negligence on the part of the vehicle operator. Why criminalize negligent driving when the civil law system exists to address issues of negligence? Though drivers rarely mean to hit anyone, many crashes result from choices made by the drivers. The crash was accidental, but the reckless passing or text-messaging while driving or excessive speed that caused the crash was intentional. To achieve safer roads, the state must make unmistakably clear that we no longer tolerate reckless driving. Passing and enforcing HB 88 will convey that vehicle operators bear responsibility for their negligent actions that harm others. HB 88 will provide much-needed swiftness, public accountability, and the peril of possible criminal penalties. These will provide the backbone for effective efforts to improve driving behavior.