The OED defines possible as,

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

Furthermore, practical is defined as,

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

Finally, practicable is defined as,

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

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

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

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

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

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

a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unique to the statutes governing vehicular bicycle operation is 551.103(a)(4), “unless the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.” Understanding this language is critical to the discussion, because, by far, the majority of outside lanes in metropolitan settings are less than fourteen feet in width. This sub-section of the code specifically entitles a vehicular cyclist to claim full possession of the lane. So long as at least one additional inside lane exists — into which an overtaking motorist may safely move to pass — occupation of the entire lane does not constitute an impediment. Where only one lane exists in either direction and it is not wide enough to share, the cyclist — by virtue of physical and design limitations — effectively sets the prevailing speed. In circumstances such as the latter, it is at the discretion of the cyclist determine whether it is safe and efficacious to pull aside and allow motorists to pass. If more cyclists were able to comprehend these concepts and employ them on a regular basis, the entire argument pertaining to a perceived need for safe passing buffers would be moot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

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

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

Present

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Language

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

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

Details

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

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

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

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

Reason

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

Gov. Perry Vetoes SB 488
June 19, 2009

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

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

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

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

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

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

RICK PERRY
Governor of Texas

ATTESTED BY:
COBY SHORTER, III
Deputy Secretary of State

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

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

Reality

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

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

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.