Vermont transportation agency outlines statutory review of laws for pedestrians, bicyclists; no draft bills yet

Vermont Agency of Transportation staff told the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 19 that an agency review has identified multiple places in state law that may need clarification to reflect current active-transportation practice, but staff have not yet drafted statutory changes.

The report, requested in Section 47 of last year’s transportation bill, cataloged statutory provisions in Title 19 and Title 23 affecting pedestrians, bicyclists and their interaction with motor vehicles and recommended further stakeholder consultation before proposing amendments. Amanda Holland, who now serves in VTrans’ Operations and Safety Bureau, said the agency convened monthly meetings with an “active transportation partners” group and held one-on-one conversations with nonprofits, state agencies and other stakeholders to prepare an appendix summarizing relevant statutes.

The review identified several topics needing further work: consolidating base definitions now split between Titles 19 and 23; updating mode-of-travel classifications (including how to treat personal mobility devices and distinctions among motor-assisted and electric bicycles); clarifying where various devices may operate (sidewalks, bike lanes, shared-use paths and paved shoulders); and harmonizing terminology and policy among state agencies including the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, the Department of Health and the Agency of Commerce and Community Development.

“We don’t have any statutory language or provision recommendations at this point in time,” Holland told the committee. She said the agency’s initial phase was an inventory and analysis intended to inform later discussion and drafting if VTrans determines changes are warranted.

As part of the same review, VTrans evaluated four variations of intersection rules commonly discussed as “Idaho stop” policies: allowing bicyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield; treating a flashing red as a yield; treating a steady red as a stop sign; and allowing bicyclists to proceed during a pedestrian signal’s leading interval. The agency analyzed crash data from 2014–2023, enforcement records and state and national practice.

VTrans reported 760 motor-vehicle crashes involving bicyclists in that 10-year window, with 55 reported as occurring at intersections (and a larger share—VTrans staff estimated up to 75 percent—when collisions occurring near intersections are included). About 59 percent of those crashes were in the Chittenden County area; roughly 11 percent of the crashes were classified as major (fatal or suspected serious injury). Amanda Holland said eight bicyclist fatalities appeared in the crash data for the period.

VTrans said its analysis of the subset of major crashes (85 incidents) showed the most frequent contributing circumstances recorded were improper driving/action and failure to yield right of way. The agency reported it found no clear, statistically robust safety benefit in the available crash records that could be directly attributed to statewide adoption of Idaho-stop–style rules. VTrans staff noted research and state reports do describe possible secondary benefits, but also that it is difficult to isolate the effect of a single legal change from other factors.

“I don’t think we need an action from the committee, to continue these efforts,” Jesse Devlin, VTrans’ Safe Systems manager, told the committee, describing the review as a “springboard” to further stakeholder work.

Committee members asked about next steps and whether VTrans would return with draft statutory language. Holland said the agency intends to continue meetings this year with its active transportation partners and with state agencies; if VTrans identifies items it supports for legislative change, it would aim to develop proposals for a subsequent session but offered no firm timetable.

Members raised follow-up questions about related implementation topics: the availability of bicycle-counting programs and hot-spot data (VTrans said statewide bicycle volume data are limited and mostly come from point counts done by regional planning commissions); how federal reviews such as Section 106 historic-preservation reviews and NEPA processes affect project timelines; and the role of safety education and outreach if legal changes are adopted. VTrans emphasized that changing traffic laws requires coordinated outreach by many entities—drivers’ education, the State Highway Safety Office (which administers NHTSA funds), DMV, municipalities and nonprofit partners—and that education programming is largely supported by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grant funding.

Several committee members requested additional stakeholder testimony and suggested VTrans return with a check-in later in the session; one member proposed asking AARP and Locomotion to testify. Holland said the agency could continue its monthly stakeholder meetings and return to the committee with updates.

The presentation and committee questions produced no vote or formal directive. VTrans staff and committee members framed the work as an initial statutory and evidence review with further consultation required before any legislative proposals would be prepared.

Ending — The committee acknowledged the report as an initial assessment that identified gaps and topics for further inquiry. VTrans will continue stakeholder convenings this year and return to the committee as appropriate; no draft legislative language was presented at the hearing.