Safety corridors coming to Kansas

[J N Winkler]

http://www.kansas.com/2012/02/15/2217102/senate-committee-advances-bill.html

The headline contains the phrase "bill to crack down on speeders on Kellogg, K-10," which causes me to wonder how much background reading the reporters did on safety corridors as used in other states.

I am not keen on the doubling of fines and the elimination of the buffer and option to plead down.  It makes safety corridors a very heavy-handed tool and in the case of Kellogg the potential for adverse impacts on traffic flow is high.

[agentsteel53]

The bill is intended to answer complaints about speeding on Kansas 10 where 5-year-old Cainan Shutt was killed in a cross-over crash last year.

if that is really the intent, then they would start fining people who don't know how to stay in their own lane.

I $u$pect $omething el$e.

[route56]

(for the record, in case you didn't know already - although I never met Cainan Shutt, I do know his mother, and I did attend the visitation prior to his funeral)

I do believe, however, the safety corridor concept was brought up to KDOT from the community, not the other way around. If that is the case, I doubt that revenue was the first thing on their minds when they brought this idea forward.

Needless to say, my friend has been lobbying in support of this bill.

The full text of Senate Bill 342 can be found here: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb342_00_0000.pdf

Interstates are eligible to be designated as safety corridors. However, designating a highway as a safety corridor within city limits requires concurrent, and revocable, approval from the City in question. In the case of Kellogg, they would require approval from Wichita. For K-10, KDOT would have to deal with Eudora and DeSoto [in the latter case, however, I'm sure they will gladly approve such a designation]

Also, there is nothing in SB 342 that would make speeding by < 10 MPH in a safety corridor a moving violation. EDIT: See Below I do not know if left lane hogging is a moving violation (Kansas does have a Keep Right except to pass law)

The version of SB 342 that was amended by the transportation committee has NOT been posted. If they did remove interstates and eliminated the 10 MPH moving violation buffer, I'll let you know when the bill is posted. UPDATE!: The amended version of SB 342 has now been posted. Details are below.

[kphoger]

Regarding left lane hogging.....last I knew, the keep right law is not in force within city limits, but rather only in rural areas.

Regarding the whole speeding on Kellogg thing.....well, crap, I'm quite fond of doing 70 mph on my way to and from work.  In fact, Kellogg is the only road in Wichita limits on which I've gotten a speeding ticket.  However, if I'm honest with myself, it's probably a good candidate for cracking down on speeding; I must admit that pushing it over 70 is usually not very safe.  Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether or not the safety corridor thing rescinds the fact that anything under 10 mph above the limit is not counted as a moving violation on high-speed roads?

[route56]

Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether or not the safety corridor thing rescinds the fact that anything under 10 mph above the limit is not counted as a moving violation on high-speed roads?

The answer is yes. It was added by the Senate Transportation Committee.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb342_01_0000.pdf
(Current draft of SB 342)

Making speeding in a safety corridor a mandatory moving violation was the only thing added by the Senate Committee.

[route56]

Here's the Lawrence Journal-World's version of the story:

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/feb/16/kansas-senate-committee-approves-increased-fines-k/

EDIT: I should also note that, according to the supplemental notes posted on the KS Legislature website, there was no testimony in opposition to the bill.

[Scott5114]

Nobody wants to be on record as "opposing highway safety".

[kphoger]

Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether or not the safety corridor thing rescinds the fact that anything under 10 mph above the limit is not counted as a moving violation on high-speed roads?

The answer is yes. It was added by the Senate Transportation Committee.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb342_01_0000.pdf
(Current draft of SB 342)

Making speeding in a safety corridor a mandatory moving violation was the only thing added by the Senate Committee.

Ah, lovely.  So going 61 in a 60 at 11:30 PM, when you're the only car on the road, can end up on your driving record.  Yeesh...

[route56]

UPDATE!

The Bill has gone through the Senate Committee of the Whole, and should be passed by the full Senate and sent to the house later today.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/feb/22/proposal-double-fines-k-10-advances-senate/

Senator Rob Olsen from Olathe did criticize the bill, a$ he had the $ame concern$ as agentsteel53.

Senator Mike Peterson from Wichita introduced an amendment that re-introduced a 5 MPH buffer zone for safety corridors, and also synced it up with the insurance reporting provisions. (i.e., speeding by > 5 MPH in a safety zone gets reported to insurance) Therefore, doing 61 in a 60 would remain a non-moving violation, and won't go in your driving record or reported to the insurance companies.

SB 342, Version 3.0 is posted here:
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb342_02_0000.pdf

UPDATE 2: Final vote on SB 342 was 22-18. Those voting "nay" included Senators Olsen and Peterson. Senator Peterson had also introduced an amendment that would have all provisions of the bill expiring on July 1, 2015. [e.g., a 3-year time limit]

[Sykotyk]

Nobody wants to be on record as "opposing highway safety".

Name a bill a certain way, and you skew public opinion.

[route56]

Here's some additional insight from a Senator who voted "no" on SB 342... direct from the primary source.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE

MR. PRESIDENT:  I would like to explain my vote on SB 342.  While I deplore the actions of those who do not obey laws in work areas along Kansas highways, and therefore put workers and other commuters in danger, and while I emphatically support all safety actions to protect our workers, I voted no on SB 342 because it does not include the proper signage to designate the changes in penalties with breaking the laws in so called "safety corridors."   Mr. President, many drivers may not be aware of these new penalties and we owe it to our citizens to post proper signs in these designated areas.  Posting signs designating these changes may also, very well, serve as a deterrent to commuters breaking the laws.  — ALLEN SCHMIDT

Senators Lynn and Masterson requests the record to show they concur with the "Explanation of Vote"  offered by Senator A. Schmidt on SB 342.

[route56]

Article from the Kansas City Star regarding the Safety Corridor vote, focusing (obviously) on K-10.

http://t.co/a9T6aLtl

[J N Winkler]

It is certainly important to give safety corridors adequate publicity, though I believe it is exceedingly improbable that any designated safety corridors would have been left unsigned if the bill had been left as is.

[route56]

I have reason to believe that Safety Corridor legislation will not be heading to Governor Brownback's desk anytime soon.

There has been no action taken on SB 342 since the Kansas House received the bill. In fact, there has been no action in the House Transportation Committee, period.

In addition, the Kansas House held a on HB 2556, which is identical to the first version of SB 342. The House Committee heard testimony on the bill at the same time as the Senate Bill, but took no action on that bill.

In short, the Safety Corridor act is "pigeonholed" and will not become law this legislative session.