Silly clauses in SB 488 "Vulnerable Road Users" bill are nearly word for word the same as laws already present in the Texas Transportation Code. Below are some examples. Language from SB 488 is in blue, and current law is in green.
(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.
Sec. 545.152. VEHICLE TURNING LEFT.
To turn left at an intersection or into an alley or private road or driveway, an operator shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is in the intersection or in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.
Question: Why doesn't the Vulnerable Road User bill simply amend Sec. 545.152 to add the phrase "or vulnerable road user" after the word vehicle? Why add a mostly redundant clause to the new legislation? Are they being paid by the number of words in it?
(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.
Sec. 545.054. PASSING TO THE LEFT: SAFE DISTANCE.
(a) An operator may not drive on the left side of the center of the roadway in passing another vehicle unless:
(1) driving on the left side of the center of the roadway is authorized by this subtitle; and
(2) the left side is clearly visible and free of approaching traffic for a distance sufficient to permit passing without interfering with the operation of the passed vehicle or a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
Sec. 545.103. SAFELY TURNING.
An operator may not turn the vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, otherwise turn the vehicle from a direct course, or move right or left on a roadway unless movement can be made safely.
If a vehicle operator performs a right hook (as described in (e) of SB 488), why is that not a violation of Sec. 545.054 or Sec. 545.103 or both? Why are they not sufficient to prosecute a right hook? If we have an enforcement problem, is a multiplicity of clauses the solution?
(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.
Sec. 545.418. OPENING VEHICLE DOORS.
A person may not:
(1) open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic, unless the door may be opened in reasonable safety without interfering with the movement of other traffic; or
(2) leave a door on the side of a vehicle next to moving traffic open for longer than is necessary to load or unload a passenger.
Part (h) is word for word the same as Sec. 545.418 except for the four words I put in bold script. Why not simply amend present law?
2 comments:
I think the main difference with the safe passing bill is that it adds specific penalties when the violation results in property damage or bodily injury.
I have been making many of these exact arguments for nearly four months, Reed. The legislators have been led to believe they are addressing a need of their constituents, while the "advocates" (read: sniveling gutter-bunnies) feel that, without specific language in the statute, cyclists have no legal protection.
The Texas UVC recognizes a bicycle as a legitimate vehicle. As such, said designation ought to be sufficient to provide equitable protection amongst all vehicles. Ironically, it does. Application, enforcement and flawed interpretation are the real culprits. Legislation will mitigate none of these and may, in fact, exacerbate them.
Real issues arise as the result of irrational fear on the part of untrained, incompetent cyclists who find death lurking within every passing motor vehicle. They demand segregated facilities in order to feel "comfortable" (yes, that is the term many of them like to bandy about) all the while failing to realize that separation delegitimizes their claim to equal access.
No other vehicle operator calls for these accommodations. Some of them are just as "vulnerable".
Post a Comment