Good morning, my name is Gian-Claudia Sciara. I am the bicycle program coordinator of Transportation Alternatives and a long-time everyday bicyclist in New York City. Transportation Alternatives is a 5,000 member organization and the country’s largest bicycle advocacy organization.

For almost 30 years, we have worked to make the city a safer and better place to bicycle. Our staff includes nationally recognized experts on bicycle policy, and our 161 page Bicycle Blueprint is widely considered the last word on New York City bicycling.

Transportation Alternatives is testifying today on City Council Intro 101-A which requires the mandatory licensing of bicycle messenger services, plus the assumption of liability by businesses for a bicycle operator’s traffic infractions and crashes.

Much of our testimony is the same as was given on February 10th of this year, when this bill was last considered. Unfortunately, our recommendations have not been incorporated into 101-A, and the bill conesquently retains several serious flaws.

The growth of bicycle use for all purposes is good for New York City. Businesses that use bicycles to deliver legal documents, packages, pizzas, other fast food, or artwork have consciously chosen transportation that is fast, efficient, city-friendly and pollution free. Every delivery bicycle is one less van, moped, car or truck on the street. This is good news for traffic congestion, the economy and air quality in New York City.

Transportation Alternatives has 4 reasons for opposing Intro 101-A:

First, there already exists law regarding commercial cyclists in New York City which, if enforced, would ensure lawful bicycling, resolve concerns about lack of oversight of commercial bicyclists and make commercial operators more accountable for delivery cyclists. As required by Section 10-157 of the NYC Administrative Code:

• A bicycle used for commercial purposes must display the name and number of the business.
• The commercial cyclist must wear upper body apparel: a vest, jacket or jersey that states the business’ name and operator’s number.
• Commercial cyclists must carry and produce on demand a numbered ID card with the business’ name, address and phone number, AND with the cyclists photograph, name and home address.
• Businesses using delivery cyclists must keep a log book of all operators and trips.
• Businesses must file an annual report of trips and bicycle operators with the NYPD.

These requirements are already in effect. They require proper enforcement -- not more legislation.

Secondly, 101-A carries absurd insurance requirements. The bill’s minimum insurance requirements for business owners using cyclists far outstrip the minimum insurance requirements for automobiles, including taxis, in New York City.

• State law requires $10,000 minimum for property damage insurance for an automobile or taxi. Intro 101-A requires commercial bicycles be insured for $50,000 -- five times that amount.
• State law requires $25,000 minimum insurance for injuries to or death of one individual caused by an automobile or taxi. Intro 101-A requires commercial bicycles be insured for $50,000 -- double that amount.
• State law requires $50,000 minimum insurance for injuries to or death of more than one person caused by an automobile or taxi. Intro 101-A requires commercial bicycles be insured for $100,000.

Common sense as well as accident statistics tell us that such insurance requirements are way out of proportion to threat of damage from a bicycle. In 1997, 238 pedestrians were killed and 12,500 struck by automobiles. 1 pedestrian was killed and 440 were struck by cyclists.

Thirdly, the proposed legislation includes a helmet requirement that would contribute to the harassment of all cyclists and discourage the use of bicycles for commercial purposes. In 1996, Transportation Alternatives testified before this committee against mandatory helmet laws in New York City. Studies of the effect of mandatory helmet laws in both South Wales, Australia and in Oregon show an immediate 25% decline in cycling levels after the imposition of helmet requirements. The intent of this law must not be to deter the use of bicycles for commercial purposes, but a helmet requirement would do just that.

Although New York City traffic code includes no law requiring adult cyclists to wear a helmet, there is already sufficient confusion among the Police Department on this issue. Transportation Alternative receives phonecalls regularly from cyclists who have been stopped by police for not wearing a helmet. Many cyclists have even been ticketed for this imaginary violation, only to have the summons thrown out in court because no such law exists. A helmet law directed only at delivery cyclists would add to this confusion. I ride to work wearing jeans and carrying a messenger bag, yet I am not a messenger. How are the police to distinguish a commercial cyclist from other cyclists? This helmet provision invites discrimination, and we adamantly oppose it.

Fourth, the penalties for commercial cyclists who fail to carry their courier ID are excessively punitive. The proposed legislation would charge commercial cyclists with a fine of $250 to $500 for failing to carry an ID. Motorists who fail to produce a license are fined $65, and cabbies who fail to display their hack license are fined only $50.

Transportation Alternatives urges the council to review the existing city laws regarding commercial cyclists. We are confident the council will see their aims can be achieved by enforcing laws and expanding programs that already exist, but that have been ignored and forgotten by business owners, commercial cyclists and law enforcement officials alike.