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

Herman May of Garland implored Perry to veto the measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

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

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

Some other jewels from this post…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bearing the sub-title “Cyclists are our friends”, this piece from NBC-DFW continues the theme of stirring an emotional response from all sides of the issue by employing hyperbole and misinformation.

Notable for its terseness, it contains several statements which are questionable or taken out of context.

A new bill (SB 488) before Gov. Perry seeks to curb the increasing number of bicycle injuries on North Texas streets.

No proof that bicycle injuries are increasing in North Texas is provided, despite this statement suggesting that they are. Nationally, bicycle crashes have declined, modestly, over the last fourteen years. An analysis by Michael Bluejay in 1996 listed Texas as fourteenth among traffic fatalities  – this despite the contradictory language that “Texas leads cycling deaths”. Finding the truth will take some work, but in the absence of a verifiable citation, this claim by NBC must be considered false.

Texas motorists are not known for awareness of their unmotorized, two-wheeled counterparts.

Really? I have safely ridden in North Texas for over sixteen years with nary an incident that would suggest a lack of awareness. Yes, there is occasionally harassment. It would also be correct to state that few – cyclists and motorists alike – know the law as it applies to the operation of a bicycle as a vehicle. Misconception and ignorance seem to be the rule. However, none of the above denotes a lack of awareness.

An issue of Bicycling magazine recently named Dallas in particular as one of the worst cities for bicycling.

How many times does that dubious claim have to be debunked? Dallas was named among the worst cities for bicycling due solely to the lack of bike lanes. This designation is largely disingenuous and has been rendered specious by contrary views.

In the absence of legitimate experience on the subject of transportation cycling, reporters for the mass media really ought to limit their coverage of these issues to the facts. When they inject hyperbole, half-truths and misinformed personal opinion, they do a disservice not only to their readers, but sully their reputation and that of their employer.

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

Under current law, cyclists are allowed to ride in traffic lanes, but they must stay as far to the right as practical.

Er, um, no. §551.103(a) states, “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”. Practical and practicable are substantially different concepts. To confuse the two is irresponsible.

Anyway, revisions to the Transportation Code will take place in Chapter 545; the FTR rule appears in Chapter 551. Suggesting that the proposed legislation will have any bearing upon or modify the FTR rule is a MacGuffin.

They must also obey traffic laws, stop at stoplights and stop signs, and make turn signals with their hands.

True and those facts will not change under the proposed legislation.

Cyclists and runners have long complained that drivers are aggressive, while motorists complain that cyclists don’t follow the rules.

I am a cyclist and a runner; I have not made any such complaints. It has not been necessary, since I operate my bicycle in a lawful and competent manner. Sure, there is an occasional motorist who is harassing in one form or another, but they are few and far between. This legislation will not mitigate that activity.

It’s almost like you are legislating common sense.

– Terry Grisham, spokesman for the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department

That is what many of us have been saying for months.

Cyclists who ride every Tuesday and Thursday at the Benbrook YMCA were excited and hopeful that drivers and cyclists will adhere to road rules.

Really? Photos accompanying this article show cyclists riding three, four… up to six or more abreast on rural roads. §551.103(c) states:

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.

To suggest that cyclists need protections as “vulnerable road users”, while simultaneously showing them operating selfishly and illegally smacks hypocrisy. One cannot have their cake and eat it too. Their perception of vulnerability is a direct result of their lack of adherence to established law. Many conflicts between cyclists and motorists are the direct result of incompetence or lack of training on the part of one, the other or both road users. From what I can tell, in this instance, it is largely the cyclists at fault. All road users must educate themselves about the law and operate according to the rules of the road.

Legislation is not the answer; education is.

The article contains several quotes attributed to Armstrong. One stands out as seeming to confirm BFOC’s claims.

“There are times I ride in Austin, and I’m afraid of cars,” Armstrong said. “Imagine what the beginner cyclist must feel like?”

Sounds odd, doesn’t it. A seven time Tour de France winner being afraid of cars. I suppose it could be true. Viewing the following video, one comes away with a different take, however.

Fear? Where is the fear? Not only is Armstrong riding in the midst of normal traffic, in many of the shots he is doing so legally and confidently with good lane positioning and adhering to the two-abreast rule. It is the balance of the footage, which is most telling. One recognizes an unapologetic scofflaw who has no regard for the law or the other vehicles on the roadway.

More importantly, at no point within the article is there a quote from Armstrong indicating affection for bike lanes. Though there are several references to these on-street facilities, there is never a direct endorsement. The closest he comes is the following statement with respect to how Austin can reach a point where “biking is part of the culture”.

The (Lance Armstrong Bikeway) is a big start…

The author goes on to describe the “bikeway” in terms of being some sort of cycle track. Despite the inference in the article, a cycle track is not a bike lane. It is a facility designed to separate cyclists from motor vehicles and serves only to diminish the legitimacy of a bicycle as a vehicle.

In truth, all of the pandering language used by Armstrong and his partner is simply a vehicle for garnering the attention of prospective customers. It is branding; it’s advertising, pure and simple. “Advocates” in Austin, North Texas and elsewhere have relied upon fear, uncertainly and doom to build a following of inferior cyclists in order to drive their infrastructure plans. They have now enlisted a well-known cycling celebrity to help push their agenda. This same mentality has, unfortunately, been adopted by local advocacy groups.

North Texas has several organizations who call themselves bicycle advocates. Some are more honest than others when it comes to clearly stating intent. BFOC is the most vocal in their goal to see bike lanes become a part of the transportation infrastructure. A big problem with their tactics is the use of lies and subterfuge to achieve their desires. The example cited above is among many one can readily discover at their website. Perhaps less apparent is their fascist editorializing. The webmasters deny comments from those with dissenting views. On rare occasions when opposing information is approved, it is attacked with flawed arguments or criticized out of context.

Groups like BFOC capitalize on FUD to mobilize their base. Rather than present facts to support their position, some of these groups employ deceit and personal attacks. For those with knowledge and experience relative to the subject, these tactics are obvious. To the gullible and uneducated, actions like these appear to be legitimate arguments.

What I describe above is not limited to BFOC; they are only the most pronounced example. There are certainly voices from the vehicular cycling community who are also prone to hyperbole and bending the truth in order to spread their message. Some degree of hypocrisy creeps into all of these discussions. It is the responsibility of the audience to learn how to discriminate fact from fiction and hold the proponents of the latter to account.

The use of a bicycle for tranportation, in North Texas or anywhere else, is not inherently dangerous. Despite what some organizations would have you believe, when practiced according to the rules of the road, along with practical knowledge and technique, vehicular cycling is very safe and doable. The important point to emphasize is the need for education. Regardless of which side of the debate one finds themselves (pro-vehicular cycling or pro-facilities), become informed and do not allow succumb to the influence of disreputable individuals or groups. Learn to discern fact from fiction and arrive at an informed conclusion.

Van Steenburg begins his petulance with a glaring misrepresentation

Fort Worth has beaten Dallas to the punch again.

Dallas has had a functioning Bike Plan for over twenty years. With over 600 lane-miles of designated, on-street bike routes, the city is far ahead of Fort Worth in both planning and implementation.

Most, if not all, of the information upon which Van Steenburg bases his commentary originates from articles appearing in the Fort Worth Press. On 13 May, Fort Worth Weekly posted a 1400 word analysis of the “Bike Fort Worth” plan.  A little under two weeks later, the Fort Worth Business Press published a more modest 650 essay on the plan. Given that Fort Worth has stated they will not publicly release details of the plan until later this summer at the earliest, these media reports can be the only source for his information.

[Fort Worth is] starting on a six-year mission to become an official ‘Bicycle Friendly Community.’

Interesting choice of words. The term “Bicycle Friendly Community” refers to an award presented by the League of American Bicyclists to basically reward communities for the installation of bike lanes. There has been legitimate criticism of this program primarily due to its emphasis upon facilities at the expense of education and, more importantly, safety. While they do mention the Fort Worth plan as being “bike-friendly”, nowhere do either publication refer to this LAB program.

It’s time for Dallas to wake up and smell the carbon monoxide.

I guess Van Steenburg missed that day in chemistry. Carbon monoxide is an odorless and colorless gas.

The “Bike Fort Worth” plan would triple the amount of bicycle transportation, cut down on the number of bicycle-related accidents by a quarter, and earn the Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists.

This information appears nowhere in either of the Fort Worth publications. The article in Fort Worth Weekly does mention that the “Bike Fort Worth” plan will result in triple the mileage of bike trails. Of course, it also mentions that bike routes would increase six-fold – even so remaining at less than half that of Dallas – and bike lanes would swell 60x. Finally, those are all facilities predictions. No mention is made of the predicted increase in transportation share.

The problem is that cyclists don’t feel safe [with Dallas'] approach [of having cyclists share the streets with motor vehicles], and drivers never accept bikes on “their” roads.

Interesting. That approach has served me well for nearly twenty years. I only encounter occasional instances of non-acceptance. Use of anecdotal hyperbole does little to strengthen Van Steenburg’s argument. It does serve to make him look foolish. In truth, only novice and inexperienced cyclists do not feel safe when operating as a vehicle, due largely to unenlightened exaggerations like these.

Van Steenburg then proceeds to counsel the mayor of Dallas by suggesting he appoint a committee to spearhead a renewal of the Dallas Bike Plan. Three individuals of questionable merit are submitted for consideration. To my knowledge, none are qualified.

Craig Miller is identified as a local morning radio host who apparently lectures both cyclists and motorists on proper operation on the roadways. Offering advice and having real knowledge of the issue involved are two entirely disparate subjects. Pay a visit to the website of his show and one is regaled of his qualification for “hot sports opinions”. It is not opinions which are needed – there are more than enough of those to go around; we need experience and expertise.

Next Van Steenburg offers David Feherty as a prospective member. The only qualification Feherty brings is ineptitude as a bicycle commuter. Again, Van Steenburg’s facts are muddled in his exuberance. Feherty was not “hit while riding around White Rock Lake in 2008.” He was run off the road while riding in the gutter on Park Lane, between Greenville and US75. The trouble is, he appeared on the KERA program THINK (02 October 2008) and as much as admitted he was at faul, because he was riding too far to the right in the mistaken belief he had to share a sub-standard width lane. Obviously, he is not qualified to lead such a committee.

To end the nominations, Van Steenburg trots out George W. Bush. One need look no further than the standing of our country in the eyes of the world and the state of our economy to see this is an irresponsible proposal. Though he may have acquired an enthusiasm for off-road cycling during the past decade, he has no expertise or experience with transportation cycling issues. One can only imagine the damage Bush would do to cycling in North Texas.

Besides, if Fort Worth can do it, why can’t Dallas?

Not only does this interrogative conclude his commentary, it does an excellent job of summarizing his whole argument. The “Bike Fort Worth” plan is just that. It is unfunded, unproven and currently unapproved. There is no guarantee any of it will either see the light of day, much less result in the overly optimistic increases in bicycle ride share proposed. Most importantly, Dallas has already done it. Many of us continue to prove it every day! Visitors compliment both the city and its drivers.