Here is what Texas law has to say about impediment in general,

Sec. 545.363(a).  MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS.  An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

There is mention of the responsibilities of cyclists with respect to impeding the normal and reasonable flow of traffic. However the context differs from that which most might believe.

Sec. 551.103(c).  OPERATION ON ROADWAY. Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway.

In fact, the Texas Transportation Code excepts consideration of a bicycle operating in a vehicular manner as an impediment with the following language,

Sec. 551.101(a)(2).  RIGHTS AND DUTIES.  A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.

Bicycles are defined as vehicles. Physical and physiologic limitations make it all but impossible for a cyclist to maintain a velocity much above 35kph. The average is closer to 25kph. If the operator of a bicycle is making effort, to the best of their ability, to travel at a reasonable speed, there is no impediment. A notable exception being those conduits which have a minimum posted speeds, but those are few and far between. Otherwise, the law and reasonable accommodation favor the cyclist.

Similar analyses have been shared by other competent, experienced vehicular cyclists. Mighk Wilson did so in May and couched it under the same statutory framework. An earlier example includes a piece written by Bob Mionske, in 2006, responding to correspondence he received from a Minnesota cyclist in VeloNews. The simple fact is that cyclists cannot be guilty of impeding other traffic so long as every attempt is made to maintain a reasonable pace and accommodate the needs of other vehicles to the extent that is safe and logical. As a legally recognized vehicle, bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as any other operator.

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.

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…

By far the most important term in this passage is also the most misinterpreted. Almost without exception, the word practicable is misrepresented, in conversation and print, as meaning possible. This fact has always been puzzling. These terms are not synonymous.

Practicability is a concept permitting the consideration of safety and efficacy when determining alignment. It allows one to ride further to the left if there are any of a number of hazards or potential hazards which would present the potential for unpredictable, unsafe or erratic operation. Examples include collected debris, standing water, deterioration or erosion of the road surface, uneven pavement, et cetera.

The misinterpretation of practicable as meaning possible is, perhaps, the most egregious mistake made by cyclist and motorist alike. Law enforcement is guilty of the same. It is this very misunderstanding which leads annually to crashes like the one last week in Austin, another in early June in Dallas, and many others.

A serious mistake often exhibited when citing this passage of law is neglecting to consider the exceptions. The following exclusionary criteria exist in the Texas statute with respect to the FTR rule governing bicycle operation.

(1)  the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2)  the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3)  a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(4)  the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A)  less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B)  too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

Many of these are obvious and, frankly, redundant. Compare exceptions one through three to section §545.051 of the transportation code covering general vehicular operation.

DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY.  (a)  An operator on a roadway of sufficient width shall drive on the right half of the roadway, unless:
(1)  the operator is passing another vehicle;
(2)  an obstruction necessitates moving the vehicle left of the center of the roadway and the operator yields the right-of-way to a vehicle that:
(A)  is moving in the proper direction on the unobstructed portion of the roadway; and
(B)  is an immediate hazard;
(3)  the operator is on a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic; or
(4)  the operator is on a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b)  An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:
(1)  passing another vehicle; or
(2)  preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

The wording is almost identical: §551.103(a)(1) is nearly verbatim with §545.051(b)(1); likewise §551.103(a)(2) is quite similar to §545.051(b)(2); and §551.103(a)(3) is an aggregate of sorts for §545.051(a)(2). Revisiting the redundancy represented by SB488, these statements largely reiterate existing language applicable to general vehicle operation as it pertains specifically to bicycle operation. Given that a bicycle is a legally recognized vehicle in Texas, one is prompted to question why lawmakers felt the need to single out cyclists for specific reiteration. It constitutes a compelling reason for the Texas Bicycle Coalition to focus their efforts on repeal of the FTR rule during future legislative efforts, rather than their seemingly persistent endeavors to augment redundancy.

Unique to the statutes governing vehicular bicycle operation is 551.103(a)(4), “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.” Understanding this language is critical to the discussion, because, by far, the majority of outside lanes in metropolitan settings are less than fourteen feet in width. This sub-section of the code specifically entitles a vehicular cyclist to claim full possession of the lane. So long as at least one additional inside lane exists — into which an overtaking motorist may safely move to pass — occupation of the entire lane does not constitute an impediment. Where only one lane exists in either direction and it is not wide enough to share, the cyclist — by virtue of physical and design limitations — effectively sets the prevailing speed. In circumstances such as the latter, it is at the discretion of the cyclist determine whether it is safe and efficacious to pull aside and allow motorists to pass. If more cyclists were able to comprehend these concepts and employ them on a regular basis, the entire argument pertaining to a perceived need for safe passing buffers would be moot.

As citizens, we are taught from a young age that ignorance of the law is no excuse. By the same token, ignorance of the meaning of the law is not an acceptable defense either. It behooves motorist and cyclist alike to become familiar with the terminology employed in legal discourse. It could save your life!

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.

For the most part, The T has understood the potential of mass transit to serve as a supplemental mode to not only pedestrians, but cyclists as well for over a decade. They have provided bike racks on the front of their buses almost since their inception. Recently, DART has joined their neighbor to the west and now offers racks on most all of their buses, too.

Until December 2008, attempting to bring a bike on a bus was an unpredictable endeavor. A cyclist would have to survey the approaching bus for available space, ensure the operator saw they had a bike, enter through the rear doors, secure their bike, make their way forward to pay their fare and return to the rear of the bus. All the while, their ability to board was dictated by operator discretion – whether or not they felt there was enough room for accommodation.

This changed late last year of last year. It was then that the initial phase of installing front racks on all buses, except Shuttles and FLEX routes was initiated. By the end of January almost the entire fleet had been retrofitted. They are quite easy to utilize, too, and support up to two bikes. Should more cyclists be encountered on a given route, the operator has the discretion of allowing additional bike on-board according to the previous protocol.

Following the installation of racks on the majority of bus routes serving North Texans, there is little reason to use distance as an excuse. Whether one lives in a proximal suburb or a distant rural enclave, the ability to combine multiple modes has become much easier. No longer is it necessary to lug a vehicle up the steps of a bus and fight forward through the crowds to pay a fare. Through the simple task of compressing a handle and swinging an arm, a bike can be placed on the front of a bus and transported anywhere within the service area of either North Texas transit agency.

To facilitate use, DART provides detailed instructions on how to use the racks, and a helpful video.

Now that transit options for cyclists in Dallas has achieved parity with the successful program in Fort Worth, more versatility will allow a larger audience of users to consider combining mass transit and a bicycle for their daily commute. Now that another impediment has been removed and, hopefully, it is hoped more people will come to appreciate the benefits of multi-modal transportation options to improve their health, decrease stress and save money.

Michael Bluejay has compiled a competent summary of the pros and cons of bike lanes. Though it is, in my opinion, too heavily slanted toward advocacy, some valid points are made. On the other side of the fence are summaries by Fred Oswald and John Forester, which rely less on unscientific studies and more on logical analysis. No matter how you view the controversy, in the end, promotion of bike lanes is a means of shirking personal responsibility. Competency and skill are transferred from the vehicle operator to the government.

There have been no studies showing that those who are introduced to transport cycling through reliance on bike lanes to facilitate adoption ever graduate to become competent vehicular cyclists. Quite the contrary, several studies and media reports highlight the very real hazard that these infrastructure enhancements represent – particularly at intersections. The incidence of fatal right hooks increase as unskilled cyclists pass queued motorists and position themselves at the front of the line.

Other problems arise when cyclists need to make a left turn. Two options result: either the cyclist must make the counter-intuitive decision to cross the solid white line delineating the perceived safety of the bike lane and venture out into the proper traffic lanes or they must execute a pedestrian turn. Neither of these methods is intuitive and both lead to confusion and inconvenience.

We, as a society, do not provide special lanes for novice motorists, nor do we provide special facilities for motorcyclists taking to the roadway for the first time. Why is it that bicyclists are seen as needing special, designated lanes for travel from one point to another? The truth is, these facilities are not necessary.

Many municipalities already have a functional training grounds for novice and inexperienced cyclists. They are frequently referred to as bike routes. Often designed and implemented with input from experienced vehicular cyclists, these designated routes make use of relatively calm, quite side streets and residential roads to ease the inexperienced bicyclist from realm of the recreational to the world of the transportation cyclist. Because the roads chosen have relatively less traffic and, often, wide outside lanes, the cyclist is able to gain much needed confidence. As they gain experience, they can move on to busier and more efficient routes.

Competent, experienced vehicular cyclists are often chided for being closed minded and elitist when it comes to our abhorrence of bike lanes. These are interesting terms. It is more closed minded, in my opinion, to believe that special facilities are the only means of promoting transportation cycling. Proponents of these facilities seem to doubt their own ability to master proper vehicular technique, while at the same time projecting an irrational distrust of their motor propelled counterparts. They assume all cyclists must share this paranoia and consequently advocate for segregationist facilities and protective legislation.

Labeling vehicular cyclists as elitist is even more puzzling. To be among an elite is to be an exemplary representative of one’s group or class; to be superlative. That some fit that label, there is little doubt. Though the achievement has come with years of experience. Elitism is the act of promoting the best to the exclusion of the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Competent, experienced vehicular cyclists seek only to protect our right to operate as a legally recognized vehicles and encourage others to adopt the same guiding principles in order to achieve the same level of ability. This is not accomplished by segregation within special facilities. It only comes as the result of application of proven technique and ability.

Designated bike routes facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and experience through operation on quieter, wider roads. As confidence builds, competence will follow. Many of the communities in North Texas have route systems which have either been fully implemented or are close to being so. Dallas leads the way with, perhaps, the oldest and most extensive route system. Fort Worth has a nascent system with additional enhancements on the drawing board. Garland, Richardson, Plano and others have signed, on-street routes to guide new cyclists. Unfortunately, few have published this information online. Careful study of the types of streets designated by Dallas or consulting with experienced commuters, however, will allow one to glean functional insight.

If cyclists are going to preserve their right to be recognized as vehicles and respected in that capacity by others, it is contingent upon them to ensure that privilege through action. Demanding special facilities or protective legislation serves only to jeopardize our standing in this regard. If we see ourselves a vulnerable and in need of special consideration, our peers and politicians will respond by removing us from the roadway for our own protection. Instead, we must acquire the knowledge and experience necessary to be competent self-propelled vehicle operators capable of claiming our right to the road and doing so safely, legally and effectively.

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.

Recognizing the success of a discount movie promotion they negotiated at a neighborhood theater in April, the group has extended their rewards program to businesses through out the Oak Cliff arts district. Individuals and families who ride their bicycle(s) to area businesses are eligible to discounts ranging from 10% to 50%. There are even a few freebies thrown in for good measure. It is this sort of imaginative, grassroots effort which just may revitalize the local living economies of decades past and encourage physical activity.

The media coverage has been mixed. An article appearing in the Dallas Morning News was, IMO, too superficial and glossed over the potential for similar initiatives in other parts of the Metroplex. Even worse was a piece airing on the local CBS affiliate, KTVT. Instead of focusing on the community and health benefits, their angle was to couch the program as a means to weather the economic downturn (text|video). In other words, a belt-tightening scheme, rather than a health incentive and community spirit endeavor. Even so, publicizing programs like this can only have a beneficial effect for utility cycling.

BFOC is blazing a new trail with this idea. Other North Texas advocacy groups should take heed and follow suit. Friends of the Katy Trail could solicit participation from Knox Street, Uptown and Victory Park businesses; BikeDFW, Greater Dallas Bicyclists and other regional groups could work with community centers and neighborhood groups. Expanding programs like this could encourage families to think about bicycles as an alternate mode of transportation and an activity families can do together. Fostering utility cycling at the family level may translate to wider adoption of vehicular cycling principles.

Two statutes in particular are germane to the subject. Taking a look at each, in turn, we begin with §551.101.

Sec. 551.101. RIGHTS AND DUTIES. (a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless:

(1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty; or

(2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.

(b) A parent of a child or a guardian of a ward may not knowingly permit the child or ward to violate this subtitle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Specific analysis will be left to future articles. Nevertheless, this Section of the Transportation Code defines a bicycle as a vehicle and conveying upon it and its operator the “same rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle.” Definitions for the subtitle in reference are contained in §541.201, which includes:

(2)  ”Bicycle” means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

Don’t get too excited, however. The fact that a bicycle is listed as the second defined vehicle is a reflection of its ranking according to alphabetical order. Nevertheless, it reflects the conveyance of legitimacy to the bicycle as a design vehicle and that it and its operator are to be afforded respect as well as consideration as a lawful road user.

The next subsection to be highlighted is that which pertains to the operation of a bicycle upon the roadway.

Sec. 551.103.  OPERATION ON ROADWAY.  (a)  Except as provided by Subsection (b), 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:

(1)  the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;

(2)  the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;

(3)  a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or

(4)  the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:

(A)  less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or

(B)  too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.

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

(c)  Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.

(d)  Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1085, Sec. 13, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1085, Sec. 10, 13, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

A detailed analysis of this subsection will also await a future commentary. It not enough to say at this point that §551.103 is among the most misunderstood subsection in the statute. Motorists and bicycle advocates alike tend to interpret this as suggesting cyclists must ride in the gutter or as near as possible thereto. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Use of the term practicable, as opposed to practical, conveys a wide margin of discretion to the transportation cyclist. It imparts the ability to evaluate the condition of the road, surrounding traffic and environment – among other details – and determine a safe and comfortable road alignment. Ruts in the surface material, standing water, parallel drainage grates, uneven surface are a few of many legitimate factors to be considered.

Of even greater significance is §551.103(b)(4). This passage defines an important distinction. If the lane is substandard – being defined as less than fourteen (14) feet in width – then the cyclist is free to take control of the entire lane, if they so desire and if doing so does not impede the normal flow of traffic.

It has been my experience that many people have poor depth perception. Even worse, they have an undeveloped sense of distance. Consider the fact that an average automobile is approximately six feet wide, including side mirrors. An average rule of thumb for determining whether a lane is at least fourteen feet in width would be to eyeball the ability to place two average sized cars side-by side, door-to-door in the outside travel lane. If this is not possible, then a cyclist is very much within their rights to take control of the entire lane.

Need further proof? Take a tape measure out to a few of the roads near your home or place of employment. Being careful to consider approaching vehicles, run the tape out fourteen feet and place that tick at the curb face. I wager one will be surprised at how far the tape extends into the adjacent lane.

Finally, for this discussion, consider the idea of impediment. One can only be accused of impeding the flow of traffic if their presence prevents other vehicles from reasonable progression. If there is at least one other same direction lane, no impediment exists. The motorist has the option of safely changing lanes and passing the cyclist. In the absence of an inside lane for passing, only then must the cyclist consider riding further to the right or pulling over to allow the building queue behind them to pass.

Recall this phrase from §551.101, “unless [it] cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.” The laws of physics and human physiology limit the speed at which a cyclist can operate for any length of time. Thus, if the operator of a bicycle can only manage ten to fifteen miles per hour, that individual cannot be held responsible for traveling at a slower rate of speed than the surrounding traffic, because it is physically impossible for them to go any faster.

This information is presented in order to lay the groundwork for future discussion subjects. Additional analysis and commentary will deal with the evolution of the law as it applies to bicyclists in Texas. It is beneficial to know what others have attempted to enact into law on our behalf, as well as to understand the extent to which still others were willing to limit our lawful access to the road.