From the Office of the Governor website
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/12636/
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.
Woo hoo!
It would be nice to think "cycling advocates" would drop the hysteria (including the lies), take a step back, and look at the foolishness of this attempt (much less the near disastrous outcome of the anti-cycling amendments the House attempted to pass) in the cold light of day, and begin laying the groundwork for some real, constructive legislative changes to enhance cycling and cycling safety (i.e., the removal of the "far right" language that results in the dangerous practice of gutter-riding, and the hidden requirement for mandatory bike lane usage, that are in the Texas Vehicle Code), but based on the misrepresentations the "advocates" have put out, I'd be surprised if they changed their stripes.
But I've been surprised before. For one, I never expected Hell to freeze over (especially not during a Texas summer), and yet that is apparently what has happened, because I actually approve of something Governor Rick Perry has done.
On behalf of all bicyclists who support, understand and believe Section 551-101 of the Texas Transportation Code ("Every person riding a bicycle shall be granted all rights and be subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle."), I thank you, Governor Perry.
For cyclists concerned about our rights as operators of vehicles (and true safety), I'd suggest you contact the various bicycle advocacy groups telling them of your concern (remember, they tend to wave the bloody red jersey to garner popular and financial support from people who don't know how to ride without placing themselves in danger), and then contact these organizations, asking them to not support any future disingenuous attempts like this one.
22 comments:
I imagine that we'll all drop further down the LAB and "Bicycling Magazine" lists...
Bicyclist Advocacy 1-Bicycle Advocacy 0
Perhaps now is the time to urge our "bicycle advocates" to do something that will help cyclist safety TODAY while we wait for the next legislative session.
Tell them we want our local police and district attorneys to enforce Sec. 545.401.* Then, rather than having them seek redundant new laws that erode cyclist's standing as recognized vehicles under the law, they ought to make the penalties for existing law stiffer.
*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.
I am not sure what planet you cycle on, but it is clearly not this one. Just yesterday, I witnessed the specific behavior this bill was designed to prohibit. Myself and several other riders were buzzed by a pick up truck while we were carefully and legally using state roads. Three of us were actually on the shoulder on the right side of the white line and the driver veered right to put his tires on the white line, and up ahead another rider was legally on the left side of the line within a foot or so if it. With no oncoming traffic, the truck came up behind the rider and jammed on his horn to force the rider to move right.
Under current texas lae, this will NEVER be actionable.
Steve G said...
"I am not sure what planet you cycle on, but it is clearly not this one.
Under current texas lae (sic), this will NEVER be actionable."
Steve, nor would it be under the law SB 844 proposed. However, your right to be on the road would have been weakened by setting a legal precedent that removes bicycle operators from the requirements of other legal vehicle operators. Slippery slope, my friend.
The event you describe would in no way have been different had SB 844 been the law. If you believe otherwise, please explain it to me. The current law already makes what you saw a punishable offense ("reckless endangerment"). So, even though other states that have passed similar "safe pacifier" laws have seen no enforcement, you think the light bulb is going to go on for Texas law enforcement, and they'll start hiding in the bushes waiting to see cyclists being harassed?
That's not the reality on my planet.
The problem you face is the universal one--existing laws are not being enforced and police, judges, prosecutors, and juries are not holding people accountable. Steve G's description is potentially a reckless driving charge and that is the charge that needs to be filed.
Like hate crime laws, these proposals attempt to do what we should have been doing all along--not harassing certain classes of people (in this case cyclists) and holding accountable those who do. When we actually apply the law equally, the notion of hate crime, or vulnerable user laws, will be moot. I'd love to live to see that day.
Khal said...
"The problem you face is the universal one--existing laws are not being enforced and police, judges, prosecutors, and juries are not holding people accountable. Steve G's description is potentially a reckless driving charge and that is the charge that needs to be filed."
Exactly, Khal.
When I discussed my concerns with the "vulnerable user" bill with a staff member of The Texas Bicycle Coalition last year, he admitted to me it was really a publicity move to stir up support among cyclists by waving the "bloody red jersey" (my words). He admitted it me that it wouldn't be enforced any more than the current law.
I was deeply saddened when I saw TBC's email about how the bill would "save lives!", and how "over 1,000 vulnerable users are killed in Texas each year". Those claims are simply not even close to being true, and making the roads sound like a killing field does nothing to improve or promote safe cycling.
But it does potentially add money to the coffers.
Had a motorist blare his horn at me and then switch hard into my lane (rightmost) nearly clipping me and forcing me towards the curb as he yelled some profanity (I think; it was unintelligible). There were three lanes going our direction. He just wanted to harass a cyclist. I amazingly got the plates (I could tell by the way he creeped up behind me that something was about to happen). I called the Plano police non-emergency number. Policeman came within 20 minutes and continued the harassment. Officer Moore said you don't call the police when someone cuts you off when you are driving your car. I pointed out it was wreckless driving. He says he didn't witness it and that was a risk I was taking for riding a bicycle on the road.
SB 488 would NOT have made a difference other than a feel good for the cycling lobbyists.
PM, couldn't Farsi's experience be considered assault with a deadly weapon? I'm pretty sure cars count as weapons, and you'd be able to press charges for that with the plate number.
I would also be telling the DMN and local news about that story, Farsi - because similar to Ryan Moats's interaction with Robert Powell, the officer showed no common sense and public relations nightmares seem to be the only way to get the police to straighten up and act on our behalf.
Heather,
If you'll recall the incident a couple of years ago at White Rock Lake where a SMU law school professor (who was on her way to ride in circles around the lake) had an altercation with a cyclist, bumping him with her car, and knocking him down (cyclist on cyclist violence). That's essentially what she was charged with by the Grand Jury... assault with a deadly weapon, although it seems the terminology was different (IIRC) because a car is not normally classified as a "weapon".
It's up to the police, district attorneys, and grand juries to take these matters seriously. The laws are already on the books.
Board's been busy today... So a couple of points/questions from the designated minority opinion here:
1 - PM invokes the infamous "slippery slope".. What exactly is the feared end state at the bottom of this slope?
2 - FWIW - I actually agree with your big four themes
3 - all of these other comments point out exactly why the current set of laws are insufficent - they rely on the judgment of police, judges, and other non-cyclists to determine a qualitative decision about the driver's intent. The 3 foot law is not subject to opinion.. 3 feet is 3 feet or not. It is frankly and admittedly an after-the-accident strategy. If a driver hits a cylcist, he or she was clearly violating the 3 foot passing distance law... After a few sentences and stiff settlements the word will get around - don't do this or it will cost you.
Blogger Steve G said...
1 - PM invokes the infamous "slippery slope".. What exactly is the feared end state at the bottom of this slope?
The removal of a bicycle/bicyclist as a legal vehicle, with ALL rights and RESPONSIBILITIES of the driver of other vehicles. Perhaps you are too young to remember what a hard struggle that was to get bicycles recognized as legal vehicles in Texas. I'm not, and TBC damn near set us back 30 years.
3 - all of these other comments point out exactly why the current set of laws are insufficent - they rely on the judgment of police, judges, and other non-cyclists to determine a qualitative decision about the driver's intent. The 3 foot law is not subject to opinion.. 3 feet is 3 feet or not.
Simply not true. SB 844 would have changed none of that. If I were to take your argument into a court of law, I would have to have a yardstick that can be shown to have been between the cyclist and the "real" vehicle, and twenty camera angles of video to recreate the event in 3D (ever watch football instant replays to determine positioning?), and irrefutable proof that the cyclist didn't veer into the path of the motorist. The burden of proof is virtually impossible.
It is frankly and admittedly an after-the-accident strategy. If a driver hits a cylcist, he or she was clearly violating the 3 foot passing distance law...
These are NEVER "accidents". These are collisions. There is huge difference between the two. Again, if a cyclist veers into the path of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is supposed to magically move laterally? No. The cyclist will simply be found to be in violation of the law by failing to maintain control of his/her vehicle.
After a few sentences and stiff settlements the word will get around - don't do this or it will cost you.
Would never happen. The world you inhabit must be successful in getting drunk drivers off the road. Here in Texas (and the rest of America), they keep driving, and keep killing people, no matter the harsh penalties. Perhaps you believe the courts and law enforcement agencies are suddenly going to find bicyclists (and bicycle advocates) more persuasive than MADD, and get really serious about protecting cyclists? That's not a realistic assessment of our culture, our courts, our police, or anything else.
Steve G,
Per your first comment, you were on the shoulder... What we're talking about is having you actually IN the lane, not ON the shoulder. Now, I'm not saying you need to occupy the right lane of the Interstate, but I am saying that for most of the Urban settings that are discussed here, if you own the lane, then the motorist is obligated.
And if you feel like you're going to be harassed, carry some pepper spray or get a C & C license. OR, you could come take a ride with me, or someone else, and we could give you and your club a couple of lessons on lane ownership, signalling intent, etc.
A good blinky (dinotte 200/400 comes to mind) and a reflective jacket might help motorists at least think before they attempted to F with you.
As someone who rides my bike to work and out to restaurants and the movies on the weekend nights, THANK YOU for this post. People need to drop the emotional knee-jerk anger and focus on working with legislators and the Governor's office to enact well-written legislation.
Real solutions, not overreaching, poorly-written laws that would have caused more backlash against cyclists than good.
Couldn't have said it better myself Will.
I love you guys! Yeah - I am probably too young - only 53. And I probably need some education too.. When Governor Perry's buddy in his white dooly ran my friend off the road Saturday we were out on a 300K .. still probably got a lot to learn about riding on the roads.
Who or WHAT is Cycle Smart Dallas? Is this an individual, a group, or what. I found nothing on this blog telling me who or what it is. Neither did I find anything giving a mission statement or purpose. Please enlighten me.
Blogger Lynne5477 said...
"Who or WHAT is Cycle Smart Dallas? Is this an individual, a group, or what.
Yes. Cycle*Dallas is a group of individuals. cycleSMART is a position shared by others.
I found nothing on this blog telling me who or what it is. Neither did I find anything giving a mission statement or purpose."
Please read the text in the right hand column.
"Please enlighten me."
That's the goal. Ask questions, and answers will be forthcoming, as long as the questions are on topic and appropriate to the task at hand.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us more about yourself than the hidden identity in your Blogger ID reveals. Certainly an interesting blog you've started.
In several posts above, my latent, mild dyslexia makes itself apparent. The correct reference is SB 488.
Apologies for the confusion. It will happen again, I'm sure.
Enforcement is also greatly aided by nice bright line tests.
Rather than having to use judgment deciding if the driver was negligent, there is a simple binary decision available for the police use. This is why we have fixed speed limits instead of just saying the driver must go a safe speed. Much easier to enforce. I would love the police to ticket folks driving the speed limit in unsafe conditions but I have never heard of it happening. They rely on the bright line test even in a driving rain storm.
We all know at times it is safest to take the lane. I would like that spelled out in BIG BOLD LETTERS than everyone can understand and the police can easily enforce.
Wayne
The blogger on this site is far to ready to discount anyone else's valid points. A person who does such is in my book a jackass. Steve G made the self evident statement based upon simple math that (collision must be less than 3 feet). And, self evidence is the highest order in any debate, it trumps any argument. (wiki it) Which is why it is in the Declaration of Independence.
Who would refute (Collision must be less than 3 feet)? Only a defense lawyer (who is required to), and a jackass.
I suspect Steve G is being sarcastic when he says:
"Yeah - I am probably too young - only 53. And I probably need some education too.. When Governor Perry's buddy in his white dooly ran my friend off the road Saturday we were out on a 300K .. still probably got a lot to learn about riding on the roads."
A friend of mine is 62. he's raced and ridden his whole life. He's ridden hundreds of thousands of miles. Until just a few months ago, he was an influential force in teaching cyclists to ride the white line. We'd teach a bunch of Road I classes for club cyclists and he'd try to unteach them.
It was the videos and Dan & Brian's lane position research that broke through to him. He told me he thought he was doing the right thing all these years without realizing he was causing the problems he kept having. He's become an active advocate for lane control, forwarding our videos to all the same people he used to teach to ride the edgeline.
Mythology and normative behavior is powerful. I know dozens of people with tens of thousands more miles than I have who ride in ways that hurt my eyes. I rode with a guy 2 weeks ago who rides 3x as many miles per year as me, recreational and utility — has commuted across town for years — but rode straight through every right turn only lane, would take the leftmost of 2 left turn only lanes because it was closer to a curb (the median curb). If there was 12 inches of pavement to the right of a white line, he rode there. When we turned onto a 6-lane road with 10ft lanes, he went straight to the curb — it was 6:30 AM! I tried some gentle teaching, and certainly modeled good practices... he never picked up on it.
I'm not impressed with anyone's age or cycling experience. In our brain-damaged culture, it's not at all indicative that they understand good riding practices.
Steve G also said:
"Three of us were actually on the shoulder on the right side of the white line ... and up ahead another rider was legally on the left side of the line within a foot or so if it.
That's a recipe for harassment. I had a similar situation 2 weeks ago with a group where 3 were riding in a substandard gutter lane and 2 of us were claiming the right lane. We got constant shit from motorists. I've ridden that stretch of road many times with a cohesive group claiming the lane and not been harassed at all.
Post a Comment