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!

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.

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.