I was somewhat surprised to see my own comments… ahem… quoted in the story.

Herman May of Garland implored Perry to veto the measure.

“As a vehicular cyclist with close to twenty years of daily experience dealing with traffic in the Dallas area, I can assure you additional legislation is not the answer to this solution …,” May wrote.

“At its core, the primary result of this proposed legislation will be to convey a false sense of security to uneducated cyclists.”

The misquote gives the impression of incoherence. What I actually said was,

…I can assure you additional legislation is not the answer to this solution in search of a problem.

Upon further consideration, it would have been more succinct to have stated, “I can assure you additional legislation is not the answer to this non-issue.” Certainly, doing so would have left little room for ambiguity and butchering by shoddy journalists.

Equally interesting is the fact that the correspondent then proceeds to basically paraphrase other arguments from my correspondence with the governor and pass them off as his own. Few members of either side of the argument were highlighting §545.053, wherein it states that,

An operator passing another vehicle shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.

As I have stated from the outset of this debate, the only “safe passing” statute required is to flesh out the definition of what constitutes “a safe distance” and apply it to all vehicle classes. Demanding special consideration of cyclists as particularly “vulnerable” and lumping us with various, facultative pedestrian classes does little to protect our travel on the roadway. The statute as proposed would have been nearly unenforceable and would have served only to diminish the standing of lawful, competent vehicular cyclists as a recognized operator class.

The author does and admirable and largely accurate job of defining hallmarks of the two sides. Vehicular cyclists do believe that the existing “road network [is sufficient to the task of accommodating competent, skilled cyclists] and [since] bicycles are already classified as vehicles, …all we need to do is maintain our rights as road users and educate [less experienced] bicyclists on the techniques of riding a bicycle as a vehicle.” This viewpoint has many decades of experience to back it. Knowing the law, knowing the rules of the road and applying both concepts to operation as a vehicle is a proven philosophy for competent vehicular cycling.

In the other camp are those who “[argue] that until we do more to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles we’ll never see the numbers of bicyclists in the U.S. that we see in some European countries.” This perception is accurate for the most part, but ignores the influence a lack of skill and timidity bring to the equation.

From this point forward, the argument begins to disintegrate. One cannot, in my opinion, have “thinking [which] falls somewhere in the middle between these two extremes.” Being fundamentally  incompatible, it is a sign of a conflicted mind to suggest that one can be an effective advocate with “one foot in each camp.” The very concept of conceding a need for separated facilities is incompatible with the tenets of vehicular operation. The misconception within the facilities community is that vehicular cycling is an inherent skill, learned primarily in one’s youth and which needs no specialized training to employ. Separated travel conduits — whether by grade or Magic Paint — serve only to protect the novice and timid, while providing a so-called “training ground” for future competence.

The truth is that these ideals are laced with irrational perceptions and goals. Few cyclists, once indoctrinated into the facilities paradigm, ever venture outside the perceived zone of protection and become fully fledged as competent vehicular cyclists. Instead, they become dependent upon the facilities crutch and demand ever more of these unsafe, segregated zones.

In the final two paragraphs of his discussion, the author reveals his true nature. By stating he, “fully agree[s] that the fear of auto traffic is one of the main obstacles we have to overcome before we’ll see a dramatic increase in bicycle use in the U.S.”, it is plain to see he is, in fact, not a competent or an experienced vehicular cyclist. Fear of motor vehicle traffic is irrational and reflects a lack of vehicular cycling skill. The idea that the US, with its penchant for urban sprawl and dependence on the motor vehicle will ever approach the adoption level of European cities is folly. The proponents of beliefs such as these are totally out of touch with reality.

The final paragraph is, perhaps the most salient.

Bicycling may be a relatively safe activity, but the perception that bicycling is dangerous is extremely pervasive in the U.S. and it’s unlikely we’ll change that perception through logical arguments or statistics.

As I cited and argued in a discussion on this issue elsewhere, stating that…

We must find a way to build more separated facilities to make bicycling less intimidating to beginners and non-enthusiasts. We also need more training in vehicular cycling techniques to build rider skill and confidence for dealing with the realities on the ground as we build those new facilities.

…is indicative of logical disconnect between reality and fantasy. Why does he feel facilities and education are equal imperatives? Likely because, deep down inside, despite his stated beliefs to the contrary, he is not particularly as competent or experienced as he believes  himself to be. Like many fearful cyclists, he cannot reconcile the psychological from the physical; discriminate the imagined from the real.

The realm of bicycle advocacy is plagued by those who have little or no credentials to support their work. They have been convinced by others that the issue is one of “butts on bikes” at any cost. That cost can be dear. As groups lobby legislators for special protections and facilities, they surrender — whether willingly or through ignorance — not only their rights, but those of others as well.

The OED defines possible as,

That [which] is capable of being; that may or can exist, be done, or happen (in general, or in given or assumed conditions or circumstances); that is in a person’s power, that a person can do, exert, use, etc.

Furthermore, practical is defined as,

relating to practice or action, as opposed to speculation or theory; capable of being put to use. Frequently designating that area of a particular subject or discipline in which ideas or theories are tested or applied in practice.

Finally, practicable is defined as,

Able to be done or put into practice successfully; feasible; able to be used; useful, practical, effective.

While all three of these terms are adjectives, their similarity ends there. The statute mandates practicability, while almost universal interpretation is to understood the word to mean possible. Practicality allows for the use of evaluative discretion when adhering to application of the rule. An accepted rule of operation is to maintain a distance of at least one meter from the curb face as a base alignment. If there are extenuating circumstances, then the cyclist is permitted to ride further left …even to take the entire lane. This concept is covered in more detail elsewhere. The focus of this discussion is comprehension.

Interpreting practicable as meaning possible does a disservice to cyclist and motorist alike and derives from selfish wishful thinking and ignorance. Any belief that a bicycle must be operated as near as possible to the curb compromises the safety of he cyclist in myriad ways. Gone is any route of escape if some sort of serious pavement damage is encountered. Whether it be a large pothole, a seam separation, uneven surface or other blemish, if the cyclist is aligned as near as possible to the curb, there is no choice but to meet the defect head-on. Deviation to the right will likely result in a crash, as the cyclist rides into or upon the curb. Meanwhile, movement to the left risks severe injury or death due to the great potential for intercepting an overtaking motor vehicle. These scenarios are dangerous to the cyclist and contribute to the psychological issues afflicting the unskilled and inexperienced.

Any confusion between practicable and practical is due entirely to deficient reading comprehension. Inasmuch as they exist as near homophones, one could be excused for confusing the two words. However, the definition of practical exempts it from consideration for logical application to vehicular cycling principles. Riding to the right of faster, overtaking traffic can be a practical application of the rules and regulations governing vehicular operation. However, one cannot ride as far to the right as practical.

The misinterpretation of practicable as meaning practical or possible is yet another example of the harmful effects of general ignorance. Whether manifest as a motorist who barks at the cyclist to move further right or get on the sidewalk or the cyclist who cowers at the right-hand edge of the roadway, cringes at the close proximity within which overtaking motorists pass and whines for separated facilities, the misunderstanding resulting from this confusion of intent has the potential for compromising the right to operate a bicycle as a vehicle on the roadway. Some have suggested that “laws are only interpreted in our favor by [vehicular cyclists]“. This is a dangerous supposition, which, if true, opens the door to revocation of the standing of bicycles as legitimate vehicles, especially if legislators, the courts and law enforcement follow suit.

All parties involved must become enlightened regarding the definition and intent of the law as it currently exists. It is only through this comprehension that respect and coexistence can follow. More importantly, vehicular cyclists — as well as those who claim to act as lobbyists and advocates on our behalf — must work to have the FTR rule removed from statutes. It is a redundant regulation, existing elsewhere in statute as applicable to vehicle operation in general. Bicycles are legally recognized vehicles; so, once is enough.

The cyclist, Ross Clurman, told police he was within a few inches to the curb – as close as he could get – when he was hit.

This incident was, of course, completely avoidable. Even if other circumstances had predisposed the conflict to occur in some manner, had Clurman been operating in the left third of the outside lane – rather than “within a few inches of the curb” – he would have had plenty of room within which to serve as an escape route and probably mitigate personal injury or avoid the incident altogether.

The recurring theme with incidents like this is that vehicular cycling requires the same sort of operator knowledge and skill as does operating a motorcycle. In fact, both of these operator modes are identical. The only difference being the motorcyclist has the potential for much higher velocities. One does not see a motorcyclist operating “within a few inches of the curb.” Why do bicyclists feel the need to exhibit this dangerous positioning?

Texas law is quite clear in this respect:

[A] person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

This has to be one of the most misunderstood passages in the Transportation Code. However, misunderstanding is not due to a lack of clarity or intent. Problems result from a lack of comprehension due to illiteracy. Practicable is almost always equated with practical or, worse yet, possible. All three of these terms reflect different concepts. It shows a decided lack of skill and sophistication to perceive the law as requiring a cyclist ride “within a few inches to the curb” or “as close as [they] could get” to it. The words of John Forester should always be frontmost in the minds of all cyclists operating on the public roadway,

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

The victim in this crash, Ross Clurman, maintains a  personal website and has posted a summary this incident. Though specifics are lacking, one seemingly apparent fact is that Clurman is not a transportation cyclist. He states the crash occurred while ” coasting the last 100’ of a 20 mile bike ride that I do about 3 times a week.” No mention is made that this was a commute, only that it is a periodic training or recreational ride. Combine that with the statement above, that he was “within a few inches to the curb – as close as he could get” indicates he is, perhaps, partially responsible for the mishap.

Brodie Lane is a four-lane roadway divided by concrete and grassy medians in the vicinity of this crash. Neither his own summary of events, nor that of the newspaper indicate whether he was heading south or north. Regardless, had Clurman been riding in a position placing him in the center to left third of the lane he would have been more visible to the motorist. The lanes on this stretch of roadway are around eleven feet in width – more than sufficient to qualify as under fourteen feet and thus permitting full use of the lane.

Despite all of the above, responsibility for this crash lies entirely at the feet of the motorist. The article cited above leads with the following statement,

[Gregory Feazell] was charged with failure to stop and render aid, a third-degree felony, after police say he hit a cyclist Tuesday evening.”

The mere fact that the motorist collided with the cyclist on a wide open stretch of roadway, in broad daylight, with excellent site lines, indicates that he was not only in violation of §550.021 (failure to stop and render aid), but also in violation of §545.053 (failure to pass at a safe distance). Some are criticizing the police for not issuing a citation for the latter as well. However, violation of §550.021 is by far the more serious infraction and will likely drive any prosecution.

This incident is yet another example of the need for more education for both motorists and cyclists. The motorist was clearly negligent in the operation of his vehicle. Whether driving too fast for his abilities or preoccupied with some other activity, it is not a legitimate defense to say “I did not see him.” On the other hand, the cyclists could have done much more to make himself visible — chief among them riding more conspicuously, further out in the lane. The reality will be that cyclists will use this as yet another rationale for pushing “safe passing” legislation, while motorists will argue the cyclist should have been on the adjacent sidewalk. No lasting relevant action will result, because neither side involved will recognize the contributing factors of each participant.

In addition to Clurman’s account, additional comments and analysis can be gleaned from MTB Law Girl and Cycle*Dallas.

The entire concept that motorists have any rights in relation to bicyclists is condescending and dangerous. Both classes of vehicle operator are afforded nearly identical rights and duties to access and make use of the public roadway for the purpose of transportation from one point to another. Neither has a codified right toward the other.

Furthermore, the only responsibility a motorist has toward a cyclist is to respect their aforementioned, legally recognized right to free travel upon the roadway. §525.001 of the Transportation Code mandates the “Department of Public Safety shall include motorcycle and bicycle awareness information in any edition of the Texas driver’s handbook.” In addition, §551.101(a) states that “[a] person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle.” No expression that one or the other operator class was any right or responsibility in relation to the other — only the inferred responsibility that motorists recognize cyclists’ right to operate a bicycles as a vehicle.

Chapter 13 of the current Texas Driver Handbook is dedicated solely to the topic of Bicycle Vehicle Law and Safety. Its content is reproduced below, in its entirety, for reference.

CHAPTER 13
BICYCLE VEHICLE LAW AND SAFETY

BICYCLE TRAFFIC LAW

1. “Bicycle” means every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

2. “Vehicle” means a device, in, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

3. A bicycle is a vehicle and any person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle, unless it cannot, by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.

4. A bicyclist should always obey all traffic laws, signs, and signals. Never ride opposite the flow of traffic. Stop at all stop signs and stop at red lights.

5. A person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as possible to the right curb or edge of the roadway unless:

a. The person is overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

b. The person is preparing for a left turn at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway.

c. There are unsafe conditions in the roadway such as fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, potholes, or debris.

d. The lane is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

6. A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near as possible to the left curb or edge of the roadway.

7. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway must ride in a single lane.

8. A person riding a bicycle shall not ride other than upon or astride a permanent and regular seat.

9. No bicycle shall be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped.

10. No person riding a bicycle shall attach the same or himself to any streetcar or vehicle upon a roadway.

11. No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle, or article which prevents the driver from keeping at least one hand upon the handlebars.

12. Bicyclists may ride on shoulders.

13. Bicyclists may signal a right-hand turn using either the left arm pointing up or the right arm pointed horizontally.

14. Every bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

15. Every bicycle in use at nighttime shall be equipped with the following:

a. A lamp on the front which shall emit a white light visible at a distance of at least 500 feet to the front of the bicycle.

b. A red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety which shall be visible from distances 50 to 300 feet. A red light on the rear visible from a distance of 500 feet may be used in addition to the red reflector.

16. Hearing-impaired bicycle riders may display a safety flag.

BICYCLE SAFETY GUIDELINES

1. Although not required by law, it is highly suggested that bicycle riders wear an approved bicycle helmet.

2. When riding on pedestrian facilities, reduce speed and exercise caution.

3. Do not weave in and out of parked cars.

4. Move off the street to stop, park, or make repairs to your bicycle.

5. A bicyclist should select a route according to the person’s own bicycling skill and experience.

6. It is not required by law, but bicycles should be equipped with a mirror.

WET WEATHER RIDING

The visibility of motorists is greatly decreased. Wear highly visible clothing when riding on a bicycle. Water makes certain surfaces slick. Be aware of manhole covers and painted stripes on the road. Water obscures some hazards. Watch for potholes filled with water.

COMMON MOTORIST MISTAKES THAT BICYCLE RIDERS SHOULD KNOW

1. The most common motorist caused car-bicycle collision is a motorist turning left in the face of oncoming bicycle traffic. Oncoming bicycle traffic is often overlooked or its speed misjudged.

2. The second most common motorist caused car-bicycle collision is a motorist turning right across the path of the bicycle traffic. The motorist should slow down and merge with the bicycle traffic for a safe right-hand turn.

3. The third most common motorist caused car-bicycle collision is a motorist pulling away from a stop sign, failing to yield right-of-way to bicycle cross traffic. At intersections, right-of-way rules apply equally to motor vehicles and bicycles.

The reader will note that there is no reference to “motorists’ rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists.” In fact, the only reference to motorists at all concerns warnings to bicycle operators that “[t]he visibility of motorists is greatly decreased” during inclement weather and noting three “common” mistakes motorists make when interacting cyclists. Nowhere is a motorist right expressed, with respect to cyclists. Also lacking is any responsibility on the part of the motorist other than recognition that a “bicycle is a vehicle and any person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle, unless it cannot, by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.”

Yet again, an accomplishment TBC considers a feather in its cap is little more than successful implementation of unnecessarily redundant language in the Transportation Code. Had they worded the language of the bill in such a way as to promote requiring exam questions mandating bicyclist awareness, said accomplishment would have been meritorious. As it stands, though, they did little more than codify the inferential subjugation of bicyclists by motorists.

Semantics are an important part of the legal process. One seemingly innocent mistake in verbiage can provide a loophole through which future lobbyists and legislators may seek to drive a Mac truck roughshod over the rights of cyclists to operate a vehicles.

There can certainly be no doubt that TBC is the “designated statewide nonprofit organization” to which all proceeds from §504.633 (“Share the Road” plates) are currently directed and all proceeds from §504.648 (“God Bless Texas”/”God Bless America” plates) will be directed, effective immediately. They were instrumental in drafting the language used in HB2971 which led to the creation of the “Share the Road” specialty plate, the TBCEF is specifically referenced as the consulting group with which the TEA was to work when creating the design, and their yearly audits from 2004 through 2008 have line item revenue notations citing income from this plate.

Since 2003, TBC has earned at least $256,752 from the issuance of “Share the Road” specialty plates. The legislation creating this revenue source explicitly states 75% of all proceeds are to go to the implementation of “bicyclist safety, education, and access through education and awareness programs and training, workshops, educational materials, and media events”, with the remaining 25% being “used to support the activities of the nonprofit organization in marketing and promoting the share the road concept and license plates”. Where has the $192,564 from 2004-2008 been spent? Their audits do not offer specifics in this regard, only generalities such as “Public information/education”, “Conferences and meetings”, and “Other”. Given the number of timid cyclists whining for special consideration and facilities, their education and training programs appear to leave a great deal to be desired. Nevertheless, they will now be rewarded with up to five-fold additional funds to manage the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program.

The original legislation for the “Share the Road” and “God Bless Texas”/”God Bless America” plates did not specify the individual impacts of each specialty plate to the General Revenue Fund; only a cumulative net revenue gain of $969,000 overall was forecast. Judging from the annual TBC audits, roughly $55,000 per year flowed into the coffers of the TBC from the “Share the Road” plates between 2004 and 2008. Fiscal analysis of SB161 suggests a projected revenue transfer (from the State Highway Fund to the Share the Road Fund) of an average $273,000 per year between now and 2015. A comment submitted in resonse to the “TBC Agenda” analysis mused as to whether this revision to the specialty license plate statute was a money grab. It certainly looks that way.

SB161 specifically states the revenue must be spent in support of the SRTS Program. The legislation creating SRTS — HB2204, the so-called “Matthew Brown Act” (77R) — did so under jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Transportation. Its original charter was to “establish and administer a Safe Routes to School Program to distribute money … to political subdivisions for projects to improve safety in and around school areas.”

Eligible projects included:

• installation of new crosswalks and bike lanes
• construction of multiuse trails
• construction and replacement of sidewalks
• implementation of traffic-calming programs in neighborhoods around schools
• construction of wide outside lanes to be used as bike routes

Only items one and two could be logically considered to fall under the purview of an organization like TBC. Even then the oversight is not direct; only tangential, through lobbying. SB161 stipulates that revenue realized from the sale of plates “may only be used by the Texas Education Agency to support the Safe Routes to School Program of a designated statewide nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to promote bicyclist safety, education, and access through education and awareness programs; and training, workshops, educational materials, and media events.”

Interesting. The TBC had a Safe Routes to School Program; it was created as a pilot project in 2004. Information is available on their website. (Pay particular attention to the dates on the linked pages – they have not been updated in nearly three years.) Since then it has gone nowhere and, in fact, ended in late 2007. They were expecting a grant from the Texas Transportation Commission to fund permanent establishment and expansion of the program, but were declined. In March of 2008, they make the following statement with respect to their participation with a nationwide bi-lingual bike safety program.

It is based on TBCEF work in Amarillo through the now-ended BikeTexas Safe Routes to School Program (funded by the U.S.DOE Carol M. White Physical Education Program from 2004 to 2007).

If TBC no longer has a Safe Routes to School, how will they be able to comply with SB161 and direct spending of the “God Bless Texas”/”God Bless America” revenue? Is there another “designated statewide nonprofit organization” to handle this task?

This is all very curious. Just what is TBC up to? It would seem no good. Given the relatively modest income generated by the “Share the Road” plates, when compared to their robust expenditures for lobbying, one is justified in asking what specific education and safety programs they have initiated and promoted. Now that an additional quarter million dollars per year is slated to flow their way, by law, it must be funneled into a Safe Routes to School program; something they no longer have. Assuming they are the “designated statewide nonprofit organization” in question, taxpayers and TBC constituents must demand to know what the organization is planning to do with this money.

It definitely is too hot to ride a bicycle in Dallas, but it’s just fine riding one in Fort Worth and the rest of Tarrant County. Urban heat island or some odd global warming thing.

Similar comments were posted to this thread over at Cycle*Dallas.

For whatever reason, there has always been rivalries of one sort or another between Dallas and Fort Worth. As a rule, I do not engage in such sophomoric discussions. However, this claim seemed neither valid, nor relevant.

Approximately fifty-six kilometers separate the centers of these metropolitan neighbors. This distance seems hardly enough to represent any significant temperature gradient. Certainly not one sufficient to garner a claim such as that quoted above. I took some time to research the matter and found that there is, indeed, no significant difference in temperature between Dallas and Fort Worth. The facts show a very different reality to that which the contributor suggested.

The following chart shows a comparison between the daily high and low temperatures for Dallas and Fort Worth on the first day of each month in the first half of 2009.

January - July 2009

One thing to note is the fact that there is very little difference between the temperature ranges for either city during this period of time. Of particular interest, though, is the fact that Fort Worth has been slightly hotter in April, May and June. This doesn’t bode too well for the statement that there is any climate benefit to cycling in Fort Worth.

It could argued that 2009 represents an anomaly. For any one of a variety of reasons, there may have been atmospheric phenomena affecting the Western portion of the region more than the East. As an example, perhaps an upper-level high pressure ridge kept Fort Worth hotter and dryer that Dallas. Looking at the past several years may give some insight.

Looking at the high and low temperatures for Dallas and Fort Worth recorded on 01 July for the years 2001 through 2009, it becomes apparent the same trends have existed for at least the last eight years.

2001-2009 (01 July)

Some years Dallas has been warmer, others Fort Worth. The point is, there is very little difference, in terms of climate, between Dallas and Fort Worth. The statement that Fort Worth is somehow more amenable to commuting by bicycle is untenable and ridiculous.

The content on this page serves more than simply to rebut unsubstantiated claims. It shed additional light on the tactics used by those of lazy intellect who whip their adherents into a frenzied indoctrination through the use of sensationalist rhetoric, rather than factual data. This subject was discussed previously, but remains a serious issue. Bending the truth and taking facts out of context in order to lend credibility to an otherwise flawed premise represents a weak argument.

A timeless adage seems appropriate at this point: Honesty is the best policy.

Bicyclists were stunned at the turn of events..[sic] And I think they have a legitimate beef.

The reference to being stunned is an unattributed quote from a post to the TBC website in the hours following the veto. How anyone can construe my comments on SB-488 as substantiation of the irrational cries of foul from the supporters of this legislation is beyond my understanding. Perhaps the DMN and its editor are simply employing an unethical technique for garnering hits. My criticism of this superfluous legislation is unquestioned.

Some other jewels from this post…

I used to pedal my bike to the DART train station, lock it up and commute via rail.

No information as to why he stopped doing this. To speculate would be irresponsible. Nevertheless, the demeanor of the author leave little question.

I think motorists are bullies and react out of proportion to the perceived inconvenience.

This is among the most irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims made by timid, inexperienced cyclists. The majority of motorists are not bullies, nor do they overreact to the situation. I can count on one hand the number of times in any given month when I experience harassment of any type by motorists. When one considers the fact that the author no longer commutes by bicycle, it boggles the mind that he can offer such a definitive statement on the motives of those with whom he no longer has any interaction.

A follow-up post was published this morning, wherein the author – remember no longer a bicycle commuter – encourages readers to visit the Texas Bicycle Coalition website and sign their petition of whiners threatening Governor Perry that he will be remembered for his decision come the next election. Of course, one is immediately prompted to ask how many of these signatories actually voted in the last state election. History suggests fewer than half.

This is yet another example of an uneducated, novice cyclist penning a treatise on a subject for which he has little experience. In addition to spreading FUD and propaganda, he has incorrectly referenced my content as an argument in favor of “Safe Passing” legislation.

Of the four pieces of legislation the DMN chose to critique, they gave the least print space to SB488.

Likewise, we question his veto of the bicyclist protection bill. Perry said this legislation would have duplicated existing state law.

In both instances, the bills would have added teeth to existing legislation.

The choice of words selected by the editorial staff if interesting – “bicycle protection bill.” Of course, that is precisely what it was, but the proponents went to great length to always refer to it as the “vulnerable road user bill.” As discussed elsewhere, this proposed legislation was intentionally broadened to include a whole host of, primarily, pedestrian classes. Pedestrians are not design road users and, as the governor correctly noted, “a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to a motor vehicle, unless he or she is at an intersection or crosswalk.”

Including pedestrians was a very big flaw in the wording of the legislation. Attempting to suggest parity between legitimate, recognized vehicles (e.g. cyclists, motorcyclists, operators of farm implements and equestrians) with pedestrians is disingenuous. Legitimate, recognized road users have codified guidelines by which they are required to operate. Under §541.001 of the Transportation Code, a pedestrian is defined as a “person”, while bicycles, motorcycles and farm implements are all defined as “vehicles” under §541.201. The attempt to create an amalgam of these two classes to achieve a specific agenda creates the potential for a loss of status by one or both groups.

In the case of SB488 the legislation would not have “added teeth to existing legislation.” It would reduced our legitimacy and potentially led to more discrimination and disrespect.

Many competent vehicular cyclists have been against the perceived need for special legislation specific to cyclists from the beginning. Those who favor Bills like this are almost without exception those who either lack the knowledge and experience to operate as competent vehicle operators on the road or represent organizations who, through their failure to convince the first group of the need for vehicular training, resort instead to placating the whims of the timid.

History

The first attempt to pass “Safe Passing” legislation in Texas took place in 2005. Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston.13) submitted SB-859, with Deuell and Shapleigh as co-authors. It constituted a revision to Chapter 545 wherein a new sub-section, 0535, would define the “safe distance” for passing a cyclist on the roadway and ascribing penalties for violation. It died in committee when, upon second reading, Ellis called to suspend regular order to consider the Bill. The motion failed the required two-thirds vote and was killed.

Another attempt to quantify a “Safe Passing” distance as applicable to cyclists, uniquely, took place two years later, in 2007. Again, it was Senator Ellis who submitted SB-248; he was joined as co-authors by Senators Carona, Lucio, Van de Putte and Watson, with Representative Linda Harper-Brown as House sponsor. Initially, the language was essentially identical to that of the attempt in 2005.

On the fifty-seventh day (20070508) of the session, upon second reading of the Bill, Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston.07) offered two ammendments. The first would have essentially limited the scope of the statute to highways by removing the word “street” (failed); the second would have mandated the use of a mirror by the bicyclist (failed). Upon failure of these proposals, Senator Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth.10) proposed a third amendment which would have added the statement “or was operating on a public road that does not have a paved shoulder” to §551.104(b)(2) (passed), effectively strengthening the MBL/MSL rule.

The legislation returned for consideration and a third reading on the fifty-eighth day (20070509) of the session. Once again, Senator Patrick proposed an amendment. This one would have completely removed language in §551.104(b)(2)(A) allowing a red reflector visible to the rear of a bike to a distance of 50-300 feet and mandated the use of a red lamp visible to 500 feet. It passed overwhelmingly.

Ultimately, the proposed legislation died while awaiting placement on the General Calendar.

Present

Following that brief history, we arrive at the 81st Legislative Session (2009). The story begins in the House, this time. Representative Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving.105) filed the draft of HB-273 on 17 November 2008. It is somewhat interesting to note that a Republican lawmaker initiated the legislation this time. Her version contained almost identical language to that submitted in 2005 and 2007. It was read for the first time on 17 February 2009, where it was referred to the House Transportation Committee …never to be heard from again.

On the same day, in the Senate, Senators Ellis and John Carona (R-Dallas.16) were joint authors of a Bill, SB-488, which greatly expanded the scope of road users affected by the legislation and ascribed all beneficiaries the moniker “vulnerable road users”. In addition to cyclists essentially all Slow Moving Vehicles (SMV) recognized by the state, including farm implements, equestrian riders and vehicles pulled by equines, were included. Most amazingly was the practice of naming facultative pedestrian road users as legitimate design users. The latter to include “runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right of way” as well as a “stranded motorist or passenger.” Personal discussions with a member of DORBA who resides in District 105 and a member of the legal team of the Texas Bicycle Coalition revealed the reason behind the inclusion of these various personages was to garner sympathy from fence-sitting Legislators in order to push the Bill through the Legislature. Within days (20090223), Harper-Brown had resubmitted her Bill as HB-827 containing language identical to that of the Senate version. This time around, there were companion versions in both the House and the Senate.

The Senate version of the Bill made good progress through its Transportation Committee with few proposed amendments. As he had done in the past, Senator Patrick sought to change the language of the legislation. Most of the latter were minor clerical revisions except for the demand that dooring and harassment subsections be removed.

(h)  A person may not open the door on the side of a vehicle that is adjacent to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to open the door without interfering with the movement of traffic, including vulnerable road users. A person may not leave a door open on the side of a vehicle that is adjacent to moving traffic for a period longer than necessary to load or unload passengers or goods.
(i)  A person may not harass, taunt, or throw an object or liquid at or in the direction of any vulnerable road user.

Additional amendments were offered in the House Transportation Committee, which were more egregious. The first added several classes, “a tow truck operator and a person operating a handcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor-assisted scooter” and removed the inclusion of motorcycles. Had this action prevailed “vulnerable road users” as a class would be limited to Slow Moving Vehicles, skaters and pedestrians. Perhaps more troubling was a proposal to require “a pedestrian or a person operating certain cycles, a moped, or a motor-assisted scooter, from operating more than three feet from the right edge line of pavement on a highway or street.”

Thankfully, save the inclusion of tow truck operators, none of these recommended changes survived the committee.

Final Language

Despite counsel by competent vehicular cyclists throughout the process, the the Legislators persevered with their efforts and the Bill eventually made it through both branches of the legislature. The following constitutes the final language of the proposed legislation.

AN ACT
relating to the operation of a motor vehicle in the vicinity of a
vulnerable road user; providing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.  Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code, is amended
by adding Section 545.428 to read as follows:
Sec. 545.428.  VULNERABLE ROAD USERS. (a)  In this section,
"vulnerable road user" means:
		  (1)  a pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person,
		  child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck
		  operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or
		  near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger;
		  (2)  a person on horseback;
		  (3)  a person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle,
		  including a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or
		  unprotected farm equipment; or
		  (4)  a person operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or
		  motor-assisted scooter.
	 (b)  An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user
	 operating on a highway or street shall:
		  (1)  vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if
		  the highway has two or more marked lanes running in the same
		  direction; or
		  (2)  pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.
	 (c)  For the purposes of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions
	 allow, safe distance is at least:
		  (1)  three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light
		  truck; or
		  (2)  six feet if the operator's vehicle is a truck other than a light
		  truck or a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Section 522.003.
	 (d)  An operator of a motor vehicle that is making a left turn at an
	 intersection, including an intersection with an alley or private road
	 or driveway, shall yield the right-of-way to a vulnerable road user
	 who is approaching from the opposite direction and is in the
	 intersection or in such proximity to the intersection as to be an
	 immediate hazard.
	 (e)  An operator of a motor vehicle may not overtake a vulnerable road
	 user traveling in the same direction and subsequently make a
	 right-hand turn in front of the vulnerable road user unless the
	 operator is safely clear of the vulnerable road user, taking into
	 account the speed at which the vulnerable road user is traveling and
	 the braking requirements of the vehicle making the right-hand turn.
	 (f)  An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a
	 manner that:
		  (1)  is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable
		  road user; or
		  (2)  threatens a vulnerable road user.
	 (g)  An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid
	 colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an
	 intersection of roadways.
	 (h)  A violation of this section is punishable under Section 542.401
	 except that:
		  (1)  if the violation results in property damage, the violation is a
		  misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500; or
		  (2)  if the violation results in bodily injury, the violation is a
		  Class B misdemeanor.
	 (i)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the
	 time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation
	 of the law.
	 (j)  If conduct constituting an offense under this section also
	 constitutes an offense under another section of this code or the Penal
	 Code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both
	 sections.
SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

Details

The fact that almost all of the details of this legislation are repetitious seems not to have any bearing on the discussion. Proponents insist revision to the statute is a must in order to provide safety to cyclists. These individuals ignore the most important means of promoting vehicular cycling – education. Existing law is more than adequate to satisfy any perceived deficiencies the proposed legislation sought to fill.

In an earlier discussion, I shared the authority under which we, as cyclists, receive recognition as legitimate vehicles under the Texas Transportation Code. Section 545.051 defines the rule by which slower moving traffic is to stay right and §545.053 stipulates that overtaking vehicles are to do so on the left. Sub-section 545.053(a)(1) mentions only that the overtaking vehicle is to do so at “a safe distance”. Admittedly, this statement is ambiguous. Even so, the concept is unquestioned. Rather than create an entire statute defining a safe and acceptable distance applicable only to “vulnerable road users”, it would seem more logical to define this distance as applicable to all vehicles under the existing statute. After all bicycles are legitimate vehicles under state law.

While the details of the next concept will await a future dialogue, treatment of the real issue bears identification. Almost all road users and law enforcement officers have a disturbing misunderstanding of §551.103. They begin reading that section and see the phrase “a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway” and stop. Many confuse “practicable” with “practical” or, worse yet, “possible”. More germane to this discussion is their failure to appreciate an important disclaimer: “unless . . . the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is . . . less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane.”

Believe it or not, almost all outside lanes in North Texas are under fourteen feet in width, That being the case, on almost all roads a cyclist is within their rights to take control of the entire lane (i.e. to ride to the left of center). When this alignment is adopted, there is created a natural buffer zone of at least three feet between the cyclist and other vehicles overtaking and passing them on the left. Since the whole point of this legislation is to create a three foot zone of comfort, the tools and legal definitions providing that buffer already exist.

Reason

Though it seemed like folly to pursue, several of us contacted the Governor’s office imploring him to consider a veto of SB-488. It seemed like a long shot, but was worth the effort in the end. On the afternoon of 19 June, Twitter, the blog’sphere and eMail accounts were all a buzz. Word had been disseminated that the Governor was close to a veto of the proposed legislation. Final confirmation came late in the afternoon, when the following statement was released.

Gov. Perry Vetoes SB 488
June 19, 2009

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

Pursuant to Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby disapprove of and veto Senate Bill No. 488 of the 81st Texas Legislature, Regular Session, due to the following objections:

Senate Bill No. 488 would create a new class of users of roadways, called “vulnerable road users,” which would require specific actions by operators of motor vehicles. These vulnerable road users would include pedestrians; highway construction and maintenance workers; tow truck operators; stranded motorists or passengers; people on horseback; bicyclists; motorcyclists; moped riders; and other similar road users.

Many road users placed into the category of vulnerable road users already have operation regulations and restrictions in statute. For example, a person operating a vehicle being drawn by an animal is subject to the same duties as a motor vehicle, and a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to a motor vehicle, unless he or she is at an intersection or crosswalk.

While I am in favor of measures that make our roads safer for everyone, this bill contradicts much of the current statute and places the liability and responsibility on the operator of a motor vehicle when encountering one of these vulnerable road users. In addition, an operator of a motor vehicle is already subject to penalties when he or she is at fault for causing a collision or operating recklessly, whether it is against a “vulnerable user” or not.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed my name officially and caused the Seal of the State to be affixed hereto at Austin, this the 19th day of June, 2009.

RICK PERRY
Governor of Texas

ATTESTED BY:
COBY SHORTER, III
Deputy Secretary of State

For a detailed view of this bill, visit http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=SB488.

Much of this language is akin to what many of us were trying to convey to the lawmakers in the House and Senate all along. It is somewhat gratifying to find one government official willing to consider reason. Almost immediately less competent cyclists began criticizing the Governor and others of us who have been heralding a call to reason from the beginning. One woman, in fact, has submitted a FOIA request for all correspondence Perry considered before arriving at his decision. It has been posited that the Austin Police Department is behind the decision. I have a feeling she and others will be surprised at the results.

Reality

This legislation was ridiculous from the beginning. In states like Florida and Oklahoma, where laws like this are already on the books, there have been absolutely no prosecutions. Colorado lawmakers passed a version earlier this year and the backlash was almost immediate.

As mentioned above, a competent, experienced vehicular cyclist creates their own rolling buffer zone as they travel down the roadway. Validity of this concept does not originate with me. It has been proven through application by many cyclists. Cycle*Dallas and CommuteOrlando have excellent commentary with robust threads discussing this topic. Groups who consider themselves advocates for transportation cyclisting betetr serve their constituents by directing their efforts, not at specious legislative measures, but toward education programs aimed at inexperienced bicycle commuters and utility cyclists. Most or the problem centers around the irrational fear that motorists are a danger to bicycle operators. In actuality, ignorant cyclists are their own worst enemy.