There is a bill in the Texas Legislature proposed by cycling "advocates" to pass a 3' Safe Passing law in Texas. After much thought, I came out in opposition to this law for a number of reasons, including its ineffectiveness in other states. But my main reason for opposition was the "victimization" of cyclists, and the growth of demands for "special" facilities and laws to compensate for the lack of responsibility often displayed by cyclists. Among my fears is the sense that we are entering a time of backlash against cyclists, and that our rights as operators of vehicles will be eroded by a combination of well-meaning but naive cyclists, and ill-meaning anti-cycling forces.
My fears have come true. From the Texas Bicycle Coalition...
The 2009 Safe Passing Bill, House Bill HB 827 was heard and passed yesterday by the Texas State House Committee on Transportation by a vote of 8-0.
Unfortunately, the committee amendment to HB 827 includes problematic provisions. We have been here before and BikeTexas is asking cyclists to view the bill, even in its current unsatisfactory state, as a vehicle to get us to final passage of a Safe Passing Bill with the right provisions in place. We still have a number of opportunities in the process to remove or effectively resolve the problem parts. (For the bill text, check our website; we'll post it when the committee updates the language.)
Two additions are of most concern:
First is a provision inserted by the committee requiring that vulnerable road users must operate within three feet of the right edge or curb of the roadway (Proposed Section 545.428 (a)(4)).
Second is language stating that the Safe Passing law may not apply to a road without to two lanes in the same direction "with a total width not less than twenty four feet". In other words, it would only apply on 4-lane roads (two lanes in each direction). This is in response a BikeTexas proposal to incorporate language from the 2003 "Move Over Law", passed in the 2003 legislative session, to protect law enforcement officers on the side of the roadway (Proposed Section 545.428 (b(1)).
This language requires motorists to reduce speed to 20 mph below the posted speed limit if approaching a vulnerable user and not able to provide three-feet clearance. The "Move Over" provision did remain in the version passed by the Transportation Committee. BikeTexas had offered the "Move Over" language in response to legislator concerns and after conferring with several Texas bicycle advocacy leaders.
The prohibition against the "right-hook" was removed by the Committee. The "left-hook" provision remains in the bill (Proposed Section 545.428 (d) and (e)).
These changes appear to have been added as a result of informal input to the Committee from other legislators. BikeTexas staff is making inquiries to get more details on this development.
Many Texas cyclists understand these provisions are unworkable in the context of current Texas Transportation Code (TTC) concerning bicyclists as well as in practice of safe cycling techniques on the roadway.
The bill is still in the middle of the legislative process and BikeTexas staff sees several opportunities to get the Safe Passing bill back into a version that will benefit cyclists with its legal, operational and educational merits.
By not really believing that "Bicycles Are Vehicles", but that bicycles are toy vehicles that need "special" provisions, a Pandora's Box is being opened. Legislators from across the width and breadth of Texas have come to Austin for the biennial meeting of the Texas Legislature, seen the scofflaw cyclists that are only too visible in Austin and the special "keep cyclists away from traffic" facilities the subservient cycling class likes so much, and have gotten the message loud and clear.
While enlightened cycling advocates are pushing their states for the removal of the misunderstood and dangerous "Far To The Right Laws", Texas' advocates are on the verge of bringing about the worst "Far To The Right" laws in the nation, removing our rights to operate a bicycle safely in a vehicular, and responsible, manor. Thanks, guys and gals.
Now more than ever, contact your State Representative and State Senator, and express your opposition to both House Bill 827 and Senate Bill 488.
9 comments:
Disaster! What fools!
We don't need a vulnerable user law- it is redundant!
What we need is for our advocates to press for enforcement of the current law, specifically:
Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Hello? Stop making useless laws that squander our liberty and educate and prosecute with the more than adequate tools that are already available to us.
Tailwinds Mr. Summers.
ChipSeal
http://chipsea.blogspot.com/
As in most other aspects of life, the mindset from which we approach an interaction influences the way we are treated.
The mindset of these laws which codify a minimum passing clearance come from the same mindset that advocates bike lanes... it is something like this:
"Please Mister, can I have this space over here on your road."
The very attitude behind this type of advocacy reinforces the idea that we are "less-than."
What about approaching the situation with an attitude of fundamental equality?
"This is MY road, too. I have a long-established right to drive my human-powered vehicle upon it (as opposed to the revocable privilege of motorists, BTW). I have the equal right of first-come, first-served in whichever traffic lane I'm using. I want the law, public policy and enforcement to reflect and uphold that right."
I take that mindset out onto the road with me when I ride, and I am treated the way I wish to be treated by the majority of motorists. I get very different results from the motorists I encounter than do cyclists who have a subservient mindset.
If advocates took that mindset into public policy meetings, imagine how much different the result would be.
Didn't you have a pin-headed legislator a few years ago who wanted to outlaw bicycles from all farm-to-market roads 'for their own safety'? He reasoned that the narrow roads combined with farm traffic were unacceptably dangerous for cycling. Of course, high-speed limited access roads are too dangerous as well, so maybe a cyclist should be limited to riding the sidewalk - only in front of his house.
Please keep this foolishness south of the Red River. We have plenty of native foolishness here in Oklahoma, and I'd rather not import more.
Seriously, though, here's hoping that rational minds prevail.
There is more to this story...
A local "bicycle advocacy" group, BikeDFW, has been promoting these laws in every venue to which they have access. In addition to their website, the most pronounced of these has been Facebook, where they have numerous sycophants. Since their initial submission to the 81st Legislature, I have been warning about just this sort of result with reference to SB488 and HB827. Until today, my comments have been admitted, but, sadly, largely ignored.
In response to a call to action by the current Secretary/Treasurer, Michelle Flinn Holcomb, I reiterated my warning in this regard. I further added that what we must strive to do is lobby for repeal of the FTR and MSP rules. More importantly, as vehicular cycling constituents, we must contact our representatives in the legislature and strongly urge them to withdraw this Bill.
For my efforts, my comments were deleted by Ms. Holcomb. Her exact words were, "they are on MY wall - you can post whatever you like on YOUR wall." Like BFOC, any challenge to the disingenuous rhetoric is summarily deleted or left in limbo, unapproved.
Once again, a pseudo advocacy group is censoring the voices of dissent in order to perpetuate their egregious agenda of special considerations for cyclists. They like to argue this legislation is innocuous and serves only to fill a gap in the existing UVC. Criticism is directed at true advocates by labeling them as somehow superhuman or having lost sight of the needs of the average cyclist. Meanwhile, proposals such as this result in a net loss of equity and legitimacy.
This has happened before; I warned that it would happen again and it has.
@Ed W
Yes, that was Jeff Wentworth. He is still in office, but has kept a low profile on cycling issues.
velociped said...
"@Ed W
Yes, that was Jeff Wentworth. He is still in office, but has kept a low profile on cycling issues."
I believe Wentworth was originally expected by TBC (BikeTexas) to be a sponsor of the 3' Passing bill in the House.
"Once again, a pseudo advocacy group is censoring the voices of dissent in order to perpetuate their egregious agenda of special considerations for cyclists."
That sounds remarkably like my short-lived experience with the Dunderhead Alliance. They welcomed open and frank discussion, provided you agreed with their proposals. Otherwise, it was like the Woody Allen movie, Bananas.
"I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother."
Welcome, fellow subversives!
I'm reluctant to criticise BikeDFW too severely. Unlike MANY "bicycle advocacy" groups, they actually promote proper riding technique through frequent classes. Nobody else (private OR public) does this in North Texas.
Now, y'all email them and tell them to actually HOLD the Road I class I'm signed up for (and have already paid for) in Grapevine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve,
I think we've been having venue issues. E-mail me directly at Cyclingcenterdallas.com and I'll meet up with you for a one-on-one. Okay?
As for the bill, well, education costs $35 a day per person. Enforcing the 'law' is a lot more expensive.
UPDATE:
Senate Bill 488 passed without the House's amendments/changes. While that's semi-good news, don't exhale yet. It's still bad law-making, but it's not (yet) disastrous. It goes to committee now to hash out the differences between the House and the Senate. I still expect the House to hold sway (perhaps I'm wrong), and I still oppose this bill (in either form) as a weakening of cyclist's position (no pun intended) on the road.
On another matter of "positioning", apparently the the language regarding "sharrows" (another favorite of angry-inferiority cyclists) in the forthcoming manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD: "The Bible") places sharrows 4' from the curd face/road edge on most roads (implying lane positioning), and 11' out on roads with on-street parking. So, during peak hours, when parking is often not allowed, a cyclist will be "positioned" to ride is a de facto 19' lane in such a way as to permit (encourage?) passage on the left AND right. Sound like fun to you?
Post a Comment