The Meat of SB 488 is Flawed

Dear reader, I have become alarmed at the silly proposed law now being considered in the Texas State House Transportation Committee. The Texas Bicycle Coalition is working to get this passed while claiming to be advocating for Texas cyclists. As I don't think this bill will add anything to the Texas Transportation Code that will protect operators of vehicles beyond the protections we now have, it does not deserve the support of cyclist advocacy organizations.

Criminal acts under the present law are being neglected by law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts. As such, this bill is squandering political capital that would be better spent on education and more vigorous enforcement efforts.

I will address each section of SB 488 starting with:

Sec. 545.428(b)(1)

An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall 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;

This is a new requirement for motorists, and it applies when there are two or more lanes going in the same direction. Motorists cannot "share a lane" with anything or anyone if they have a same direction lane to merge into.

The cyclist already enjoys the statutory right to ride two abreast on such roads, and it may encourage cyclists who are now cowering in the gutter to ride in a safer lane position on these roads. This language seems to presume that if you were passed with a clearance of less than a safe distance it would not be a violation if the motorist and the cyclist are in separate marked travel lanes.

This could provide an opportunity for educating and encouraging vehicular cycling on Texas' arterial roads. Motorists must change lanes, therefore there is no reason to stay near the curb. The real hazards to a cyclist are in front of him with crossing traffic, which a controlling lane position provides a defense for.

If the cyclist is traveling in a bike lane, motorists would not be compelled under this bill to merge left, for the cyclist is not riding in the motorist's lane. In that event, passing at less than a safe distance would not be a crime.

The passage of this bill will increase motorist's demands for bike lanes so that cyclists will be out of their way and they will not have to be inconvenienced by them.

This section is aimed at protecting pedestrians and road workers who are not in bike lanes. It will not fundamentally change the environment for cyclists.

Sec. 545.428(b)(2)

An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user
operating on a highway or street shall pass the vulnerable road user
at a safe distance.

The bill then defines what "safe distance" means for a two lane highway.

Sec. 545.428(c)(1)

For the purposes of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance is at least three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light truck.

For the most part, compliance with this section will necessitate changing lanes into the oncoming traffic lane completely. If the cyclist were riding on the left side of the lane, however, a car may not be able to pass without violating the three foot rule. This bill has a different standard for heavy trucks, however:

Sec. 545.428(c)(2)

For the purposes of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance is at least 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.

[Sec 522.003.(5)(b) DEFINITIONS: "Commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used to
transport passengers or property that has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds;]

Now this will cause no end of grief. For example, how can the vehicle pictured above on that road, comply with this rule?

Arguably, if the cyclist rides in the left tire track of the lane, this vehicle must stop and pull off the road if he is traveling in the opposite direction of the cyclist.

This law forbids that truck from overtaking a cyclist on a road like that one. Unless the cyclist is crowding the fog line, there will not be six feet of clearance. Yet I have been safely overtaken by many commercial trucks on that very road while riding to the left of the center of the lane.

All vehicles must pass with due care and in a safe manner under sec 545.053 making this provision redundant for vehicles.

This bill, by including cyclists as a vulnerable road user, is treating cyclists as pedestrians, not vehicles. Isn't that going to inevitably erode the liberties that we now enjoy?