As with the previous BPAC meeting, NCTCOG offered a web seminar to interested parties prior to the general meeting. This month’s topic was “Safe Routes to School”. Due to work obligations, I was not able to make it to the seminar and can offer no summary. If the past is any indication, the accompanying documents will be available at the BPAC website in the next day or so.

The BPAC meeting began five minutes late and commenced with introductions. Though there was ample representation by the various municipalities, other governmental agencies and NGOs, the only group even remotely affiliated with bicycle advocacy in attendance was the Texas Trails Network. Though I was the only individual who identified themselves as cyclist, there were at least three others who simply gave their name and no affiliation. Both principals from Bowman-Melton Associates were in attendance as were representatives from TBG Partners and an ambiguous entity known as “SGK Associates”. There were also representatives from the Injury Prevention Center of Dallas and DART.

Topics discussed at this meeting were Safe Routes to School, the Cottonwood Trail and a Regional Veloweb update.

Safe Routes to School

The Safe Routes to School discussion began with an overview presentation by COG staff, followed by comments by TxDOT staff and a short Q&A session. Some highlights from my notes included comments by COG staff on the following subjects: pedestrian injuries third leading cause of death among children and mention that a large number of schools no longer “allow” children to bicycle to school; even going so far as to remove racks.

I challenged the comments by COG staff by posing a couple of questions. Though intended as rhetorical, they were couched in such a manner as to solicit a response to verify the obvious. Citing the statement pertaining to pedestrian injured being the third leading cause of death among children, I asked whether this statistic was specific to school zones or a general rate. Staff confirmed my suspicion that this was an overall rate and could not cite what proportion was specific to school zones. Since the discussion centered around the benefits of the Safe Routes to School program and its benefits, I offered that this would be the more pertinent statistic.

When asked to further explain the finding that many administrations no longer “allowed” students to bicycle to school and were actually removing racks, I posed it as a dichotomous inquiry: was the reasoning paternalistic oversight or a disuse/maintenance issue? The answer fit closer to the first. The justification cited dealt with the perception of liability on the part of the school district if a student were hit and injured while riding a bike on school property. I countered that the Safe Routes to School program deals primarily with providing enhancements to protect pedestrians and cyclists off-campus, en route to school. Implementing changes  on these fronts would do little to mitigate the potential for injury on school property.

During the course of the staff presentation, revenue generated by the sale of “God Bless Texas” and God Bless America” specialty plates was cited as a source for funding Safe Routes to School. Figures of $44 million dollars in infrastructure allocations and $2.4 million in non-infrastructure funding were mentioned. My final question was directed at the TxDOT staff.Citing SB161, I asked how non-infrastructure funding would be affected by the passage of this legislation given that the average annual distribution of funding for 2007 matched almost exactly the revenue cited during legislative testimony as being shifted from TxDOT to a “designated statewide nonprofit organization”. Admitting their ignorance of SB161 and after having explained its ramifications to them, the TxDOT staff indicated they had no knowledge of how the specialty plate revenue had been utilized in the past or how it would — being shifted, for all intents and purposes, to TBC — in the future. Don Koski, the committee chair, suggested this might better be answered by the statewide coordinator, who would be participating in a supplemental SRTS gathering at NCTCOG in September.

Cottonwood Trail

The Cottonwood Trail presentation offered little more information than is available through the coalition website (link above). A query from another attendee wondered about the meandering nature of the trail, if it is intended as a transportation facility. The presenter, Jonathan Toffer, acknowledged that issue, offered no real rationale, but cited other sections which were (or would be) more linear in nature.

Annie Melton rightfully criticized one section of the trail, running along Spring Valley and Coit, which is defined only by a seven foot sidewalk. Potential issues cited were concurrent use by cyclists and pedestrians. The only solution offered by the presenter was that cyclists could convert to pedestrians or make us of the roadway. Present company excepted, all involved in this aspect of the discussion seemed to think cyclist peril too great to consider the on-street option.

Regional Veloweb

The final segment of the meeting dealt with a summary and future survey of progress on the Regional Veloweb. Use of the phrase “transportation route” was repeated several times, as if the presenter was seeking to convince either themselves or others in attendance that this is the primary intent of the network.

During the Q&A period, I repeated my oft proposed suggestion that surveys be conducted to gauge the actual transportation sue of the Veloweb. Given that Federal air quality mitigation funds are being used in its construction as a alternative transportation network, it seems obvious that COG would have an interest in determining whether it is being used for its intended purpose. I cited The Katy Trail as an example of a failed implementation of this paradigm. This portion of the Regional Veloweb has been referred to as the “Central Expressway of bicycle commuting”. However, in truth, there are only a half dozen or so regular, documented transportation cyclists who make use of it in this manner. Furthermore, given the congestion created by pedestrians, travel upon The Katy Trail is rarely expedient — certainly approaching nowhere near the 25mph design speed. The millions of dollars in CMAQ funds spent to build this trail seems misplaced for the benefit of only a few cyclists. Those monies would have been better directed at education and training many more on vehicular cycling techniques.

Given the fact that bicycle advocacy groups have been disenfranchised from the BPAC process, it should be little surprise that so few representatives were in attendance. It is disappointing, nevertheless. Having been a decade+ member of its predecessor, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Task Force, I am disinclined to abandon the cause. I will continue to attend these gatherings, if only to hold the committee executives and COG staff accountable to the facts of the matters. As with today’s gathering, offering half-truths and engaging in disingenuous discourse — whether intentional or not — won’t escape unchallenged.

See the notice below for the agenda and other information.

——————————————————————————–

SENATE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

COMMITTEE:   Transportation & Homeland Security

TIME & DATE:  10:00 AM, Thursday, August 20, 2009

PLACE:            NCTCOG offices, Arlington, Texas

CHAIR:            Senator John Carona

The Senate Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security will convene in Arlington, Texas, at the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) offices on August 20, 2009.  The NCTCOG building is located at 616 Six Flags Drive, Arlington, Texas, 76011, and the Committee will meet in the Transportation Council Room on the first floor. The Committee will receive invited testimony from entities including:

• - The Governor’s Office of Homeland Security
• - The Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
• - The Texas Adjutant General’s Department
• - The Texas Department of Public Safety
• - The Texas Department of State Health Services
• - The Texas Department of Transportation
• - The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)

Topics to be discussed may include, but are not limited to, border security, traffic safety, the H1N1 virus, the TxDOT management audit, HOV lanes, stimulus funding, high speed rail, transportation finances, the TTI Mobility Report, and updates on agency activities.

The Committee will also receive public testimony.  If you would like to testify, please limit oral remarks to 3 minutes.  If you would like to submit written testimony, please submit 15 copies, with your name on each copy, to the Committee Staff at the hearing.

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.

Be that as it may, the TBC was not totally unsuccessful during the 2009 session. They did manage to get two pieces of legislation signed into law. SB2041 adds language to sub-section 161 of Chapter 521 (“Drivers Licenses and Certificates”) of the Transportation Code mandating the inclusion of questions testing the “knowledge of motorist’s rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists” on the state driving test, while SB161 will amend sub-section 648 of Chapter 504 (“Specialty License Plates”) to, in their words, “provide funds through ‘God Bless Texas’ and ‘God Bless America’ special license plate sales to go to the BikeTexas Safe Routes to School program.”

SB2041 sounds, on initial consideration, to be a worthwhile accomplishment. The current version of the Texas Driver Handbook has an entire chapter devoted to “Bicycle Vehicle Law and Safety” – the whole of three pages. Under current statute, required elements of the license exam include a vision test, the ability to identify and understand highway signs in English, and knowledge of the state traffic laws. As of the first of September, added to this list of requirements will be “knowledge of motorist’s rights and responsibilities in relation to bicyclists.” Curious.

What rights do motorists have toward bicyclists? As a legally recognized vehicle, we are already afforded the same rights and responsibilities as motorists. Item three of the Texas Driver Handbook clearly states: “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.” This being the case, what possible benefit will be realized by including specific exam questions related to cyclists? Following this logic there ought to be questions pertaining to motorists’ rights and responsibilities in relation to equestrians and the operators of farm implements.

SB161 is even more illogical. Instead of the more limited and focused beneficiary cited in the quote above, language in this statute actually reads,

the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the share the road account in the state treasury and may only be used by the Texas Education Agency to support  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.

Hmmm, looks familiar, doesn’t it? It goes on to state,

Up to 25 percent of the amount in Subsection (b) may be used to support the activities of the nonprofit organization in marketing and promoting the Safe Routes to School Program.

The Legislature saw fit, in 2003, to create a specialty license plate modeled on the theme of “share the road” and featuring the likeness of Lance Armstrong in a “maillot jaune”. Proceeds from the sale of this plate were earmarked “to be used only by the Texas Education Agency to support the activities of a designated 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.” It would appear TBC is to begin receiving funding for a program they no longer sponsor. How are these resources being allocated now within TxDOT? Why is it necessary to designate more monies be transferred to the TBC?

Is this really the type of organization we, as cyclists, want to have representing our interests to the legislators in Texas. They failed in their bid to get one specious and redundant law enacted which would have partially eviscerated our standing as a legally recognized vehicle, by equating us with various pedestrian classes; they succeeded in getting a specious and redundant law passed which mandates the inclusion of questions on the state licensing exam pertaining to one specific user class; and they are lying about the actual mechanics of the application of a third law they succeeded in getting passed.

If the Texas Bicycle Coalition really wants to be an advocate for vehicular cyclists, here are some legislative proposals which will go much further in promoting the safety and education of cyclists and motorists alike.

Remove the FTR rule

§551.103(a) is redundant. Since bicycles are legally recognized as legitimate vehicles, §545.05x covers all aspects of vehicular operation – including that of slow moving traffic.

Remove the MBL rule

Elimination of §551.103(a) will take care of this. However, in the event legislators cannot stomach the political fallout from removing this sub-section altogether, at the very least they can revert §551.103(a)(4)(A) to its original language. (The mandatory bike lane language was added as punishment for revising this subsection to define an unsharable lane.)

Define a “safe distance”

As explained in the SB844 summary, §545.053(a)(1) already stipulates that one vehicle overtaking another must do so “at a safe distance.” Apply the “Safe Passing” sentiment to the existing law by specifying buffer zones pertaining to all SMV classes.

These steps should define the primary mission of the TBC, if they truly wish to be seen as an advocate for the rights and safety of bicyclists in the State of Texas. Abandon the practice of pandering to novice and timid cyclists. Develop education programs to train inexperienced cyclists on proper vehicular cycling technique. Work with therapists to help treat those suffering from Cyclist Inferiority Complex to overcome their phobias and become competent cyclists. Protect the rights of experienced vehicular cyclists to operate on the roads in safety.

revision history
20090720: removed a paragraph regarding the distribution of SB161 funds due to a misread of the language. This subject is addressed in more detail elsewhere.

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.

Prior to the beginning of the meeting proper, COG staff arranged for those interested to participate in a web-based seminar (note: I refuse to use the idiotic term webinar) on developing a Bicycle Master Plan. Initiation was delayed due to technical difficulties and, once resolved, we joined the session in progress.

The featured speaker was Peter Lagerwey, instructor with the National Center for Bicycling and Walking. Sponsored by the Association for Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, “Bicycle Master Plans” provided an overview of what municipalities and transportation districts should consider when creating a BMP. Without going into to much detail, here are some interesting points to mention.

• Under the section entitled “Create a BAC” in part I, special note is made that any Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) should include a wide variety of cyclists with varying degrees of experience. Evidently, COG did not participate in this seminar prior to restructuring the BPTTF, as they have all but excluded the beneficiaries of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure from the BPAC (see below and earlier commentary.
• Under the section entitled “Objectives to support goals”, the presenter suggested the installation of at least twenty (20) miles of bike lanes, per year, for ten years will show the general public the project is progressing as desired.
• Under a section entitled “A Bicycle Facility Network for Everyone” and admittedly added in hindsight, the inclusiveness principle highlighted above was reiterated with a comment the audience should be identified and representatives included at all stages of the process.
• Toward the end of the presentation mention was made that “paint is your friend … put some of that down and there you go”; followed by “always be putting product on the ground …to show you are successful.” With comments like this, engineers will be laying something on the ground, alright.

A series of resources from this seminar is included with meeting documents at the NCTCOG website.

The BPAC meeting commenced pretty much on time, but immediately got off track when the agenda was modified. Introductions were initially scheduled to consume five minutes. However, the moderator, Karla Weaver, decided she wanted everyone in the room to introduce themselves and identify their affiliation. The additional seven to ten minutes lost were never recouped.

Attendance was among the most bountiful I have seen for a BPTTF/BPAC meeting in quite some time. While the room was not packed, it was more than three-fifths filled. There were a few familiar faces and a bevy of new ones. Notably missing were representatives from some regional advocacy groups. Present were two individuals from BikeDFW, one from DORBA, one from Lockheed Martin Recreation Association and one from Pegasus Flyers. Meanwhile, Greater Dallas Bicyclists, Friends of the Katy Trail, Bike Friendly Oak Cliff, Texas Trails Network and Texas Bicycle Coalition were all MIA.

A decent summary of meeting activity can be found in a post over at Cycle*Dallas. Thus I will not repeat that information here. Instead I will offer some comments and observations.

Several revisions to the committee composition have taken place since distribution of the last draft in January. The number of “potential members” has been shaved from 55 members to 49 members. That seems like a good change.  The seven “transportation providers” has been reduced to six; the thirty-six STTC Cities have been reduced to thirty-four (sorry Euless and North Richland Hills); and the number of STTC Counties remained unchanged at nine. Perhaps most notable was the fact the four Regional Focus Groups had been sliced from the committee structure altogether; removing any and all advocacy groups from official representation. They have now all been reclassified as “interested parties”. Don’t despair, though; “Interested Parties” are now “partners” and are “no less important”. Yeah, they just can’t vote and have no permanent seat at the table.

During the Regional Veloweb Update, the group was provided an update regarding progress of this recreational boondoggle. Following over a decade of work, only 200 of a planned 644 miles have been built or funded. The design speed is rated at 25mph. (I guess no one has ever attempted to use The Katy Trail as a commute route) Comments from earlier public meetings have been compiled and evaluated; additional public meetings for comments leading to final plan approval will take place this summer.

I will skip comment on the 2009 Sustainable Development Call For Projects (CFP), as this does not apply directly to bicycle transportation directly. The existing roadways are entirely sufficient for any support of vehicular cycling. Anything else is simply recreation or segregation.

The balance of the meeting was consumed with three show-and-tell presentations by the newly minted Chair and Vice-Chair.

Don Koski kicked things off with an overview of “Sidewalk Survey and ADA Pedestrian Curb Ramp Study”. Results indicated there is a need for 457 miles of sidewalks and 330 ADA ramp installations at estimated costs of $41,856,210 and $1,014,500, respectively. Despite Steve’s interpretation that “[Fort Worth] now considers 5 feet the minimum width for a sidewalk along an arterial/collector road”, that is only a recommendation and is unfunded according to the survey. Their “next steps” are to “develop a work plan” and “seek partnership and funding opportunities”. Basically, don’t look for anything anytime soon.

Koski next provided an overview of “A Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan [for the] City of Fort Worth”. Several photos throughout the presentation illustrated egregious examples of poorly implemented bike planning. One showed a door zone bike lane; another a cyclist riding between the fog line and the curb face. Actually, it could very well have been an eighteen inch bike lane. All but one or two appeared to be stock photos. One would think Fort Worth would make an effort to at least stage photos from around the city to promote their plan. Steve mentioned “the bullet about 295 miles of bike lanes by 2020 flashed out” at him. That did not strike me as jumping out so much as the notations that a) all of their funding is based upon 2008 dollars and b) maintenance costs are not included in the estimated financial burden. One final disappointment was Koski’s emphasis on the importance of “complete streets”.

It bears reiteration that all this talk of the Bike Fort Worth plan is both unfunded and unapproved. Many changes may exist down the road and there is no guarantee any of this will come to light – especially under the current economic climate. ‘Tis all much ado about nothing until approved  by the City Council and funded.

A comment from Paul Hakes (DORBA) after the presentation highlighted the propensity for bike lanes to become filled with debris and hazards. He then asked what would be done to ensure clear lanes. Koski simply stated his department had been conversing with Streets to ensure that would not be the case.

Another question came from Gordon Sander (Pegasus Flyers). He wanted to know how ordinances would be changed to legally accommodate inline skaters’ use of bike lanes, since they are now classified as toy vehicles. The response from the moderators was that this subject had never been considered. (This is actually a state issue. He will need to lobby the Legislature to revise the Transportation Code.)

Renée Burke-Jordan followed Koski and provided an overview of the “Plano Bicycle Transportation System”. Hers was at once slightly more encouraging and disappointing. Encouragement came from the standpoint that bike lanes were not mentioned at all. She illustrated plans to make use of sharrows to help guide cyclists with proper positioning on the roadway and educate motorists about the presence of these alternative vehicles.

The primary disappointment was the glacial pace at which Plano appears to be implementing its plan. Burke-Jordan showed three revisions through time. The first was dated 1985, another 2001 and the last 2009. I am not sure she intended this impression, but, in commenting on the final plan, she suggested there were still five revisions to the map in store. If it has taken twenty-four years to get through three revisions, one can only imagine how long the remaining five will take. She also mentioned that, of all the designated bike routes which exist on paper, only three of them have actually had signage installed. No explanation was offered as to why, but she indicated her group was working on resolving that deficit.

Overall, the presentations by the Chair and Vice-Chair left much to be desired. There was little in the way of inspiration conveyed to the audience. As Steve stated, it was pretty sterile and ho-hum. Status quo, unfortunately, in terms of BPTTF meetings of the past.

Following the presentations, Bill Hammond (BikeDFW) asked about resources the COG or BPAC might generate to help novice cyclists determine routes to commute between home and work. Furtive glances ensued among COG staff and the executive officers. Ultimately, no satisfactory response was forthcoming. Burke-Jordan quipped that following the five remaining revisions something would be available on the Plano website. Deborah Humphreys suggested using “BikeMap” (though there was no designation as to .org, .net or their own internal resource) to derive possible routes.

Of course the best resource for those residing in Dallas is the online version of the Dallas Bike Plan.

One Yahoo (whose name and affiliation I did not catch) wanted to know if ordinances would be changed to allow cyclists to perform rolling stops at traffic control devices so as to maintain momentum. The moderators responded, correctly, that all vehicles would be required to follow the rules of the road.

The final presentation ran right up to the designated 16:30 end of the meeting. Various individuals began leaving as soon as 16:25 and fully half had skipped out by 16:35. (This is a pet peeve of mine. It is especially aggravating at the opera and symphony. If you come, be prepared to stay until the end or do not come at all.) In keeping with past committee practice, the overpacked agenda left little time for questions or discussion; the belabored introductions did not help with this shortcoming. Karla Weaver mused with respect to the tight agenda, “maybe there will be a little more time on the agenda [in the future]; there was so much this time.”

Yeah, maybe.

The future of the BPAC is an open book. There was similar enthusiasm in the early years of the BPTTF. As time went on, meeting attendance diminished considerably. Unless COG staff can create a compelling agenda for each meeting and an overall, longterm plan of relevance, I see this group following the same path. Representatives will attend only when it serves their best interests to do so. Pedestrian and bicycle transportation issues are simply not a high priority for most governments in North Texas. They will certainly give it lip service, but little more.

Stay tuned for more information. Future meetings in 2009 have been slated for 14:00- 15:30 on 19 August and 21 October.

Much to my surprise, I discovered there is no readily available source for information regarding injury rates. An inquiry to the county injury prevention center at the Dallas County Hospital District revealed there had never been a request to produce a summary such as this. That perplexed me, since, in order to come to the conclusion reached by the NBC-DFW reporter, Holly Lafon, one would have to request this information. Being the ever curious scientist, I initiated a request for the data required to derive these numbers and will post the results, should they be forthcoming, at a later date.

In the meantime, I thought I would take a look at a somewhat more critical data set: fatality rates.

The primary repository is the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia of the NHTSA. FARS is a freely available resource containing data on all vehicle crashes that occur on a public roadway and involve a fatality in the US. Though far from perfect in its accounting methodology, this database is a useful tool for gaining insight into the numbers of vehicle deaths.

Methodology

Data for this analysis is derived from the FARS database. For the purposes of this overview, no attempt was made to carve out only those numbers relevant only to adult cyclists riding a bicycle for utility or transportation. Therefore, both children and fatalities falling under the somewhat ambiguous designation of “Other Cyclists” are also included. Since this practice was preserved across all surveyed data sets, not refining the focus should have little bearing on the overall point of the discussion.

The primary focus of research was the greater DFW metropolitan region. Since the majority of transportation cyclists live in either Dallas or Tarrant County, surveys were restricted to those geographic data subsets, rather than all of North Texas – which, according to NCTCOG, comprises a sixteen county region.

Much is made of the safety benefits of bike lanes and other protectionist facilities. Accordingly, surveys were also made of three other large cities in Texas: Austin, Houston and San Antonio. Austin and Houston are often cited as exemplary for their encouragement of bicycle commuting through installation of bike lanes. Though more fragmented and sometimes criticized, San Antonio also makes use of the s facilities to promote safe cycling.

Finally, fatality and injury figures were surveyed for Portland, Oregon. Though differing greatly in climate, population, population density and cultural philosophy, this city is often held up as the goal to which all other cities should aspire.

Results

The FARS data, at the time of this survey, spans the years 1994 through 2007. Fatality totals were mined for the entire state of Texas and each of the target municipalities during each of these fourteen years. The statewide total was used as the base by which to compare the numbers for each of the cities analyzed.

fatalities, Dallas

Though the total number of fatalities in the state fluctuates widely, traffic related deaths in Dallas County are relatively stable. With the exceptions of 1997 and 2004, rates hover between one and three fatal interactions per year.

fatality rates, DFW

Again, with few exceptions, the numbers of fatalities are just about equal between both Dallas and Fort Worth. A couple of anomalies exist in 1995 and 1997, when Fort Worth and Dallas, respectively, had higher than average numbers of deaths.

Despite the assertions by some Fort Worth bicycle advocates, Dallas’ neighbor to the west affords little advantage in terms of safety to transportation cyclists.

fatality rates in major Texas cities

Interesting results begin to appear when Austin, Houston and San Antonio are added to the mix. Most apparent is the high volume of deaths in Houston as compared to the other cities. With the exception of 2004 and 2006, Houston weighs in with fatality numbers equal to or exceeding all other surveyed municipalities combined.

fatality rate comparison

Despite numerous arguments from cyclists from the state capitol, the numbers do not lie: Dallas and Austin have almost identical fatality rates. Exceptions oscillate back and forth. In 2001 and 2002, Austin had significantly higher rates of cyclist deaths than Dallas. Conversely, 1997, 2003 and 2004 were bad years for North Texas. Notable is the lack of any reported fatalities for Austin in ether 1997 or 2003.

Twelve years of bike lanes in Austin has apparently made little difference when it comes to fatality rates.

fatality rate comparison

Facilities proponents like to point to Portland as a bicycling nirvana. Their liberal use of segregated facilities and experimental enhancements certainly keep them in the limelight. Though they flaunt a high bicycle ride share rate, which they attribute to their infrastructure, this has done little to lower the rate of fatalities.

Apologists like to highlight the decreasing proportion of fatalities to overall ridership numbers. However, they fail to produce anything other than anecdotal evidence to support their totals and the fatalities speak for themselves. Germane to this discussion is the fact that average fatality rates for Dallas and Portland are almost equal at 3.00 and 3.07, respectively.

Note: The totals for 2008 are unverified. Bike Portland has claimed there were zero fatalities for 2008. Meanwhile, the six deaths indicated for Dallas derive from published news items appearing in the Dallas Morning News. Confirmation will require awaiting the release of 2008 FARS data later in the year.

In terms of fatality rates, the data presented in this survey has proven there is no trend, up or down, in any of the municipal areas surveyed. Averaging the numbers from all years reveals, with the exception of Houston, there is very little difference in bicycle transportation related deaths within any of the cities. This is important to note, since many facilities advocates suggest that segregated bike lanes enhance safety. These data prove otherwise.

Discussion

A few will argue that this information compares apples to oranges in terms of refuting the NBC-DFW piece. That author cited increasing injury rates, while I compared fatality rates. One could argue that the one is reflective of the other, if, all things being equal, fatality rates are a consistent subset of overall rates of injury. However, in the absence of empirical evidence to corroborate that belief, it would be disingenuous to draw such a conclusion.

By focusing on fatality rates, this survey has succeeded in refuting one aspect of the safety argument. If one assumes mortality to be an equal gauge of safety as injury rates, then the presence or absence of bike lanes has little effect on survivability. Annual death rates attributable to bicycle/motor vehicle collisions are relatively consistent within a given region through time. Though one can certainly appreciate occasional fluctuations, the overall rates remain the same.

Facilities proponents need to understand that it does nothing to further their cause when resorting to the use of hyperbole and hearsay to justify their beliefs. If the arguments in favor of bike lanes and paternalistic legislation must rely upon innuendo then there is a flaw in the premise.

revision log:
20090619 – added a paragraph to the section on Methodology better explaining the scope of the Person Types surveyed and the reasoning behind the decision.

Unfortunately, in recent years the BPTTF became somewhat ineffective. Meetings were few and far between; often occurring only annually. As a result, the agenda became so packed that little room remained for discussion. It largely became a show-and-tell gathering wherein invited speakers or municipal representives simply presented study findings or project summaries. Any attempt to provide commentary or criticism was often stifled in the interest of keeping the meeting on track in order to ensure it did not exceed its ninety minute allocation. Platitiudes that ample opportunities would be extended in future meetings to accommodate feedback were offered to pacify questioners, but never realized. These meetings did not occur and necessary discussions were left in perpetual limbo.

Earlier this year, I was fortunate to receive surreptitious notification that regular meetings of an advisory committee would resume. However, it would not be the BPTTF of old. Renamed and restructured, the new entity would be known as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). [Actually, it was originally to be named the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Action Council (BP-TAC).]  No longer would the franchise members be comprised of knowledgeable members of the transportation and recreational cycling communities. Instead, the group will be comprised of seven transportation providers, 35 municipal representatives from the Surface Transportation Technical Committee (STTC), nine STTC county representatives and four regional focus groups. It is these four “focus groups” to which advocacy representatives will be relegated.

The Regional Focus Groups will be designated by COG staff and do not seen to be based upon merit or relevance. A single representative will be allowed from the Texas Bicycle Coalition (TBC), the Texas Trails Network (TTN), BikeDFW, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Of these groups, only two have any realistic experience directing bicycle transportation activity. The TTN is focused on recreational issues and TCEQ, while a legitimate voice for the RTC in general, has no bicycle related credentials. Having their voice filtered through a sub-committee designed to offer bicycle related input seems ridiculous.

Of course, “interested parties” have been assured that their presence and participation is still appreciated. They will simply not have a vote in any deciding poll and will be relegated to the sidelines.

Planning for this restructuring was apparently initiated last summer (July). A follow-up message distributed in January updated prospective members on the progress. Were it not for a friendly contact within one of the proposed municipal entities, I likely would not have received notice until the notice included below was distributed. This even though I have been a regular, active and cited member of the original BPTTF for over a decade.

With that introduction in mind, I present the following notice to interested parties and encourage you to make an effort to attend. This is especially true for those who have been dedicated participants of the BPTTF in the past. Get your ducks aligned and be prepared to express your dissatisfaction at this restructuring and demand equal representation by legitimate, experienced bicycle advocates.

Good Afternoon,

The North Central Texas Council of Governments’ (NCTCOG) newly restructured Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) is set to hold its first meeting on June 17, 2009 from 3:15 pm to 4:30 pm in the Transportation Council Room at the NCTCOG offices. I apologize for the inactivity of the BPAC in recent months, but with the emergence of many new bicycle and pedestrian projects, our goal is to become a more active body within the region. We are planning to hold three BPAC meetings for the year 2009; the dates for the last two meetings of the year will be announced at the BPAC meeting on June 17.

Representing the BPAC as Chair for the 2009 term will be Don Koski. He is a Senior Planner with the City of Fort Worth Transportation and Public Works Department, and is the principal planner for Bike Fort Worth, the City’s updated comprehensive bicycle transportation plan. Fulfilling the role of Vice Chair for the BPAC 2009 term is Ms. Renée Burke Jordan. Renée is the Trail System Planner for the City of Plano’s Parks and Recreation Department, and the planner responsible for the 2009 update to the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.

The agenda for this meeting will include a review of the restructuring of the BPAC, an update on the 2009 Sustainable Development Call for Projects funding program, status of the Regional Veloweb updates, and an update on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG). We are also designating time for presentations on bicycle and pedestrian initiatives and/or projects occurring throughout the region.  For this meeting we will focus on the Cities of Fort Worth and Plano.  Future meetings will include presentations on bicycle and pedestrian projects from other Cities.

In addition, NCTCOG is offering a FREE webinar hosted by Peter Lagerway on Bicycle Master Plans before the meeting from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, also in the Transportation Council Room. Come early and learn the step-by-step process of how to create and implement a successful bicycle master plan in your city.  Please see the attached flyer for more details.

To RSVP for the meeting and webinar, please respond to this e-mail by June 12, 2009.

A map to the NCTCOG offices can be found here.

I look forward to seeing all of you there. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime.

Thank you,

Deborah Humphreys

Transportation Planner | Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

North Central Texas Council of Governments

616 Six Flags Drive | Arlington, TX 76011

Direct: (817) 608-2394

Fax: (817) 640-3028

dhumphreys@nctcog.org

P please consider the environment before printing this e-mail