OVERTAKING AND PASSING USE OF ROADWAY11-301. Drive on right side of roadway exceptions
(a) Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:
1. When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement; 2. When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided, any person so doing shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard; 3. Upon a roadway divided into three marked lanes for traffic under the rules applicable thereon; or 4. Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic.
(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road, alley, or driveway. (c) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the center line of the roadway, except when authorized by official traffic-control devices designating certain lanes to the left side of the center of the roadway for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such lanes, or except as permitted under subsection (a)2 hereof. However, this subsection shall not be construed as prohibiting the crossing of the center line in making a left turn into or from an alley, private road or driveway.
The reason for this discussion about clarifying UVC section 11-301(b) appears to be confusion over the phrase: "any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway", in particular the meaning of the word "or" in that phrase. Note that it is only necessary to satisfy one of the conditions in order to comply with the law (otherwise the word "and" would have been used). Let's call the conditions A and B:
Condition A = driving in the right-hand lane then available for traffic Condition B = driving as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway
On an unlaned roadway, condition A cannot apply, leaving only condition B. So the driver of a slow moving vehicle on an unlaned roadway who drives as far to the right as practicable is in compliance with UVC 301(b).
On a laned roadway, the right edge of the roadway usually coincides with the right-hand lane then available for traffic. The exception would be for a right-hand preferential lane, such as a bike lane. If there is no preferential lane, then the right side of the right-hand lane coincides with the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, in which case Condition A and Condition B are not mutually exclusive. In fact, on such a roadway Condition B is a subset of Condition A, meaning that by meeting Condition B you also meet Condition A.
So the driver of a slow moving vehicle on a laned roadway who drives in the right-hand lane then available for traffic is in compliance with UVC 301(b). If that driver were also required to drive as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway, UVC 301(b), Condition A would not even have been necessary.
In fact, that is exactly the case for UVC 11-1205(a):
ARTICLE XII.OPERATION OF BICYCLES, OTHER HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLES, AND MOPEDS11-1205. Position on roadway (a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: 1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction. 2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. (b) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.
By not containing Condition A, UVC 11-1205(a) deprives slow moving bicyclists of the same right to use the right-hand lane as other drivers. That is, someone driving a vehicle slower than other traffic in the center of the right lane, even though it would be practicable to drive further to the right, is in compliance with UVC 11-301(b), but a bicyclist who does the same thing is in violation of UVC 11-1205. In 1975-76, when I helped write the exceptions that became law in California and later became UVC 1205(a), I thought that we were establishing that bicyclists had the same lane rights as other drivers, but now I realize I was mistaken.
This lack of equality in the law's treatment of the operators of vehicles and of bicyclists is one of the things bicycle advocates ought to focus on. The most straightforward way of eliminating the inequality is simply to repeal UVC 11-1205, in which case bicyclists would be subject to the same slow moving vehicle law (UVC 11-301(b) or the equivalent) as other drivers.
If one argues that bicyclists should be required to move to the right side of the right lane in order to facilitate faster traffic for no other reason than that they are riding bicycles, then that would be the same as saying that bicyclists should not have the same road rights as other drivers and that there is no such thing as "driving your bicycle".
When I used to advocate for separating bicyclists from other traffic with bike lanes, I used to think that way. But I abandoned that way of thinking when I decided to drive my bicycle instead.
Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer (I became a traffic engineer over 30 years ago through bicycle advocacy)
Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers
Member, Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists
President, Monterey County Bicycling Advocacy Group
Ex-secretary, California Association of Bicycling Organizations (1973)
Ex-president, Santa Clara Valley Bicycle Association [Now Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition] (1972-1974)
Ex-president, East Bay Bicycle Coalition (~1978)
"Are Sidepaths Included in the Definition of Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths)?" presented to the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, August 2, 2007
"Meeting the Challenges of Sidepath Intersection Design", presented to the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, October 6, 2007
"Proposed Revisions to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to Address Sidepaths", presented to the California Bicycle Advisory Committee, December 6, 2007
In my continuing quest to roll back the frontiers of ignorance, and bring understanding and light to the masses, I present to you Texas’s "maximum" speed law. The Texas maximum speed law consists of three parts. An overall definition –part (a), a two part more specific definition –part (b)(1) and part (b)(2) and then five specific examples where slower speeds would be necessary.-Part (c) 1-5 We shall look at all of this in turn.
Sec. 545.351 (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
When the term "operator" here is used, it is a reference to the vehicle the person is using.  Thus, this statute applies to drivers of automobiles, bicycles, horses, motorcycles, delivery trucks and ostriches. How fast a operator can go varies due to circumstances, and the operational capabilities of the vehicle under consideration, and even the skill of the operator himself.
A prudent speed for one type of vehicle may be far more or less than another type of vehicle. Say a 1976 Jaguar XJ6C compared to 1985 Yugo GV, for example.
A particular speed that is prudent for one driver may not be the same for a different driver in that very same vehicle. Perhaps the route is more familiar to one than the other. A prudent speed at night is different for that same trip in daylight. Reasonable does not mean "common" or "normal" by the way. You don’t have to go very far on the public way to witness common behaviors that are anything close to reasonable, in the light of what this section of the law demands.
It is not reasonable to expect your automobile will be able to stop fast in snowy conditions just because you have four wheel drive.
Thus one is expected under the law to act in a reasonable and prudent manner.
Part Two Sec. 545.351 (b)(1) An operator may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing;
This part is very similar to part one, but with the addition of a qualifier for "reasonable and prudent" that goes beyond current conditions. One must also act with regard to hazards. One must drive slow enough to allow for hazards that could potentially exist.
Again, reasonableness is at play here. In the wee hours of the morning it is reasonable to find a polecat when crossing a creek bottom, but it would not be reasonable to drive with the expectation you would have to avoid a meteor.
Sec. 545.351 (b)(2) An operator shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.
This informs those who wish to lawfully use the public road, that one may not go so fast that you would be unable to avoid crashing into slow vehicles on the roadway.
And this portion of the law introduces a new standard of conduct; That public use of the streets imposes on each of us a duty to exercise due care.
Due care refers to the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid either causing property damage or physically harming another person, taking the circumstances into account.
When operating a vehicle on a public street, we need to be sure our vehicle is in working order. We need to be sober and alert. We need to avoid distractions so that we may properly pay attention to our driving. All of this is part of exercising due care on the public way.
Sec. 545.351 (c)(1) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing.
I wonder how the phrase "appropriate reduced speed" interacts with the posted speed limit? In other words, you MUST slow down when approaching every intersection, to a speed that is appropriately less than what is posted. Traveling at the speed limit is not a reduced speed from the maximum posted speed limit. Unless one wishes to argue that reasonable and prudent speed (consistent with due care) is faster than the posted speed limit!
Sec. 545.351(c)(2) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is approaching and going around a curve
Sec. 545.351(c)(3) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is approaching a hill crest
Sec. 545.351 (c)(4) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway;
I will group these three in one section because my comment addresses them all similarly.
Together, these three clauses mean that operators must not drive so fast that they cannot stop in the distance that they are able to see ahead of them. As you drive, imagine that up ahead, just beyond the point that you can see, there is a stationary obstruction in the road (perhaps a log, or even worse, an injured child). You cannot drive so fast that you cannot stop before reaching the object. It does not matter whether the hazard is hidden due to a curve in the road or the crest of a hill, you must be able to stop. It also does not matter if the posted speed limit is higher than the prudent speed or if your autimobile is capable of handling the road at a higher speed. You simply cannot lawfully drive faster than you can see. 
Sec. 545.351 (c)(5) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.
Now most of us are good at recognizing inclement weather as a condition requiring reduced speed in order to be prudent, and potholes and downed trees seem self evident. In fact slow traffic being a condition that requires slowing down goes without saying. But look again at what Texas law says is included in "traffic"! Yes, pedestrians.
The maximum speed at any particular place is the speed that the slowest vehicle present is traveling. I think its important to emphasize that the posted speed limit is the maximum speed ever allowed under perfect conditions, with good sight lines, no intersections or traffic conflicts. Drivers must go slower than the posted speed limit for any conditions then existing at that time and particular place that mar that perfection. In fact, the posted speed limit under this statute is too fast if even the potential for a hazard is present!
Such conditions include but are not limited to weather, surface conditions, pedestrians, nightfall, animals and slow or stopped vehicles. If, for example, there is a stopped bus in the lane, the safe speed at that point is zero! If there is a front loader or horse drawn wagon, it sets the reasonable and prudent speed. If there is a bicyclist, he sets the reasonable and prudent speed in the lane he is using at that location. 
I am positive that many of you will be shocked at the implications of this plain and straightforward reading of this law. Either this standard for behavior is outlandishly high, or we as a society have fallen a very great distance indeed!
During the holiday season, I am reminded of this sad state of affairs we are in when I again watch the classic movie It’s a Wonderful Life. In one place in the film, a despondent George Bailey (James Stewart) drives through a snowstorm with the idea of suicide in his head. As he draws close to the bridge, he loses control of his automobile and crashes into a great tree. I am always struck at the scandal this causes. George Bailey stumbles away from the crash while the property owner is shouting after him; "Who’s going to pay for the damage to my tree?"
The injured tree, suffering a small gash at the most, will have little more than a scar. It is a small scene, and it goes by fast. But it is made clear that a crime has just happened. Good citizens are expected to keep control of their vehicle on the public street. George Bailey has broken yet another public trust.
This law was written in the spirit of that public trust, yet it is universally neglected. Today it would be a scandal if this law were enforced! It is not even deemed applicable when two people die when the maximum speed limit law is broken.
When civility returns to our streets, one part of that will be an awaking of this public trust, and an expectation of it’s observance by our fellow citizens again. But the good news is, you can be a lawful operator without waiting for it to become fashionable! Yes you can -and ought to- obey this law now! You now know that it is both your moral and legal duty to drive with due care, and alas, you cannot undo the knowing of it.
You will be breaking the law if you travel at the posted speed limit in anything less than the perfect conditions. Think of the awful consequences of being a responsible motorist! You will have to leave for your various destinations earlier than before. You will experience less stress and anxiety. You will have less wear and tear on your automobile. You might even save on some gas.
On the other hand, you will annoy many of your stressed out scofflaw and irresponsible fellow citizens who routinely act without due care. They may say mean things to you. They may honk their horns. They may even try to communicate with sign language, if you get my drift. You could get your feelings hurt.
So there it is. The gauntlet has been thrown down at your feet. You can resolve to do the hard but right thing, or you can give in and continue to be part of the problem.
If you have stuck with this post so far, gentle reader, please go and read this essay too. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Now think about what you would rather have for your children to inherit. The culture of speed, or the culture of trust?
Then take a moment to dream. Dream big dreams. Dream that it can happen here.
Let the dream begin with you.
 Sec. 545.002. In this chapter, a reference to an operator includes a reference to the vehicle operated by the operator if the reference imposes a duty or provides a limitation on the movement or other operation of that vehicle. The maximum speed law (Sec. 545.351) imposes both a duty to use due care, and a limitation on the movement (Speed, obviously) of vehicles. Therefore this statute applies to all things that are vehicles under Texas law. Sec. 541.201. (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. This definition is rather inclusive, but it is narrower than the definition of "traffic"; Sec. 541.301. TRAFFIC. In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel. There are some curious crossovers in the two definitions. Traffic includes herded animals, but if the herded animal is being used to carry property, it will now fit the definition of a vehicle. Put bells on your sheep, and they become vehicles!
 Adapted from Bicycles and the basic speed law by Bob Shanteau 12/31/2007 Concepts and phrases are his and used with permission.  Wayne Pein, e-mail dated November 24, 2009 Adapted with permision.
I have a lot to be thankful for. Beyond the obvious (but so normal we overlook it) like health and mobility, though perhaps I suffer from a touch of feebleness of mind! I have been reflecting this week on paying attention to good things around me.
So of course I thought of you.
After engaging in cycling issues on forums and commenting on bicycle blogs, I was invited by P.M. Summer to be a guest blogger on his CycleDallas blog. I hope I didn’t drive away very many regular readers of his!
His blog is bicycle advocacy oriented, and I desired to write a bit more personally than was proper as a guest on his blog, though I am sure P.M. would have tolerated it.
I was looking for an avenue of expression and for that end this blog has been very satisfying. But I was not expecting a new social network. I was not seeking a group of new friends. My what a wonderful surprise you have been!
I have met some of you in person (And to your credit, you hid your disappointment from what you found compared to your high expectations!) and others of you just online. Most of you are new friends to me this year, and the rest were just distant virtual acquaintances. There are so many of you! How abundantly I have been blessed!
I have tried to persuade you to my point of view, but I think my views have been re-shaped even more by you. For example, I have learned to appreciate "Dutch" style bikes, mixte framed bikes, the inadequacy of reflectors and "be seen lights". I now think that in certain circumstances, parking lot shortcuts are fine. You can be hardcore without ever riding in the rain to prove it.
I have lived 49 years without ever knowing that milk can come in bags. (I am nearly cosmopolitan now!)
I have been persuaded to slow down and sometimes even stop and get off my bike -Sacre bleu!- rather than focus on my average speed for the trip. You shared your world with me and so I purchased a camera to show you mine.
I have been schooled by your fine writing- winsome, inviting and inspiring. I long to do writing of similar quality. You have been unfailingly generous with your praise, time and advice. Thank you.
You make sport of me, and I of you, lest we think more highly of ourselves than we ought; But I have the highest respect for you, and I love you dearly. I am thankful to have such friends as you.
Four honks in twenty miles! And that is only counting the geese wanting to overtake, not the honks from annoyed motorists in opposing lanes.
On the route I needed to traverse today, I could have predicted two of them, because Texans think a cyclist ought not be in the travel lane if there is an improved shoulder. But the other two were extremely rare.
In chronological order:
First Goose; This fella had the bad luck to come up to me at place where he could not pass me safely in the 55 MPH signed speed limit road, shown here.
He stayed behind me and honked as if I were the one without the right of way. I guess he failed to remember the rule when he first got his driver's license that the faster traffic has a duty to overtake slower traffic in a safe manner in with due care. Perhaps he needs a refresher course!
Rather than passing me on the blind hill like many of his neighbors do, he waited until we got over the rise to pass me. He came up beside me on my left in the other lane, and slowed to set me straight about how to ride a bicycle. He had to occupy the opposing lane to do this because I was maintaining my position in the left tire track. If anyone cares, he was driving a recent model heavy duty red pick-up truck. Oh, and I spat in his direction as he began to overtake me. SOP. 
Middle aged red pickup driver: "You need to stay out of the road, someone’s going to run you over!" These words were not said in a angry tone, just a raised voice to be heard over the truck’s noise.
Middle aged bicycle rider: "So you admit that you are such an incompetent driver that you would run into a bicycle in the middle of your lane?" Yes, I really did ask him that.
Middle aged red pickup driver, after a pause; "It’s really dangerous to ride like that!"
I then studiously ignored him until he continued on his way.
I very rarely get honked at (Or even shot, for that matter!) on these two lane roads. That alone was unusual. But this fella, after being annoyed that I was causing him a trivial delay, adds 40 seconds or so to his delay by pacing me!
On north Kaufman, traveling north, just after it is reduced from a four lane to a two lane, this goose honked multiple times. Then he passed me on the improved shoulder at this spot:
As he passed, I spat in his direction, SOP. As he re-entered the roadway, realizing that he had been insulted he slammed on his brakes, coming to a complete stop, and marking the road like this:
I avoided him and came to a stop beside him. This is the hardest position for a motorist to strike you with his car.
Rolling down the passenger window he communicated to me.
Angry automobile driver; "You can't ride in the middle of the road, you are in the way of cars!"
Calm and witty cyclist;  "You have a duty to pass slower traffic in a safe manner and with due care."
Angry automobile driver; "Your not supposed to be in the way of traffic!"
Calm and witty cyclist; "One of us here has operated in a legal manner, and the other one has not."
Angry automobile driver; "I haven't done anything wrong! Your the one breaking the law!
Calm and witty cyclist, as traffic begins to work their way around us on the shoulder; "You don't call a panic stop in the middle of the lane reckless driving?" I suppose it should be noted that his right front fender was crumpled as was his left rear fender. I suppose he could've used working anti-lock brakes. Just say'n.
This comment seems to get him worked up. The angry automobile driver then said, roughly translated; "I have a good mind to hurt you in a bad way and make sure you stay at the side of the road!"
The calm and witty cyclist said; "Four seventy-five ex eitch are."
Confused automobile driver; "What?"
Calm and witty cyclist; " Your license plate number, four seventy-five ex aitch are."
As he speeds off, I re-enter the traveled portion of the roadway and continue on my way.
After being so upset by my having delaying his trip that he broke the law by passing me on the shoulder,  he recklessly stops in the lane to spend over a minute "speaking" to me.
Third goose; Now traveling south on north Kaufman, I ride into a construction zone where Kaufman's four lanes have been reduced to two. Another motorist honks like in a futile attempt to improve the situation. As the road expands to normal lanes I do not spit, being unsure of which driver following me had poor impulse control. I pull up to a stop behind them at the next light.
Fourth goose; As I nearly complete the final part of my ride, on the 55 MPH signed speed limit two lane that connects to my driveway, while safely overtaking me in the oncoming lane, the elderly man honks as he goes by. Did he know about my SOP?
It is uncommon that anyone ever honks at me on a two lane without a shoulder. Both honking and passing on the right are expected on a two lane with a shoulder. Four same direction honks and two opposite direction honks in twenty miles is considerably odd.
Two of them were sufficiently outraged by my lawful behavior to interrupt their trip to publicly chastise me. They were not satisfied with simply being ignorant of the traffic laws. In their certitude, they were determined to make sure everyone was aware of their ignorance!
 SOP: Standard Operating Procedure
 Hey it's my story, and I can tell it any way I like.
 He illegally passed on the right: Sec. 545.053.(a) An operator passing another vehicle shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance. He illegally traveled on the shoulder: Sec. 545.057.(b) An operator may not pass to the right by leaving the main traveled portion of a roadway except as provided by Section 545.058. Sec. 545.058.(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only: (1) to stop, stand, or park; (2) to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic; (3) to decelerate before making a right turn; (4) to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn; (5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass; (6) as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or (7) to avoid a collision.
He operated his vehicle in a reckless manner without due care: Sec. 545.401.(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful [sic] or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Curiously, this is the statute he accused me of violating. To whom does it most accurately apply to? Sec. 545.363. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
I have, this evening, sent another email inquiry to the stewards of the city of Manor Texas. I am making the email public because I am perceiving a certain amount of unresponsiveness from the city Fathers about this. I have asked some old questions that have gone unanswered, and I have added some new ones that are a bit more pointed.
The statements attributed to the city manager are alarming, and there is an unseemly odor to these proceedings. I hope that these questions will be answered to everyones satisfaction quickly and completely. Perhaps a little sunshine will help us all to see more clearly.
Dear Judge Haisler, the Austin American-Statesman has published an article about the bicycle ban in Manor. In it, the reporter quotes Phil Tate as saying:
"Enforcement will begin at the end of the month at the earliest, Manor City Manager Phil Tate said. Violating the ordinance will be a misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $200, according to the ordinance. The two-lane road is narrow, has heavy traffic and is in bad shape with huge cracks, Tate said. The "City Council has found that prohibiting the use of bicycles on Brenham Street east of FM 973 to the City limits is necessary to protect the public from harm," the ordinance says. "It's a poor place to be riding bicycles," Tate said. There are several other roads where bicyclists can ride, he said. Tate said there are no immediate plans to repave or rebuild the road."
Naturally this is alarming to to those who are fond of the "public" part of public road.
1) Did this reporter correctly quote the good city manager?
2) If not, would you please clarify the situation for me? What he is reported to have said is at odds with our previous correspondence.
3) Is it the city's position that some roads are "too narrow and have too much traffic" on them to safely accommodate all legal vehicles?
4) Because pedestrians are not prohibited from this section of the road, do you anticipate that the shoulder-less road will accommodate cyclists walking through that section?
5) If the road surface conditions are as bad as some eyewitnesses have reported, why has the city seen fit to continue to allow motorcycles and other two wheeled vehicles access to this section of the road?
6) Is it the city's opinion that this road beyond their jurisdiction is also dangerous for cyclists, and have they alerted any other jurisdictions of such existing conditions?
7) What is causing the road outside your jurisdiction to be constituted a dangerous condition? (Is it a surface hazard as well or are cyclists simply annoying the local motorists by impeding their progress?)
An anonymous commenter left this message on my blog:
"I have some insight as to the condition of this stretch of road. On Aug 30 while riding with friends, I hit a large crack in the road about a yard long, 4 inches wide and about a foot deep. No shoulder. There were lots of these cracks or crevices. I suffered many injuries -- broken hand, torn hamstring, ripped face and mouth, etc.... (I was wearing a helmet, which got cracked.) It is extremely unsafe for bikes."
This new information has spawned a more questions.
8) To your knowledge, is the described road condition by Anonymous the reason for restricting bicycle use on that road?
9) Is Anonymous the only person who has been injured by this road hazard?
10) Is his description of the hazard accurate?
11) Is this particular road condition also a hazard for motorcyclists?
12) What steps are being planned or implemented to fix the problem.
13) What is the tentative time-line for those repairs and the estimated time of completion?
14) If road conditions present such a clear and present public danger to warrant the banishment of an entire class of vehicle, why are you waiting seven weeks from passing the ordinance to enforce it?
There my dear reader, we await a response. Are there any questions you have that have not been addressed in light of the information we have?
Most of us use the roadway system as we do our common everyday electronics—we tend to take for granted what makes them function. There is a practical elegance to the way our streets and roads operate, and a greater awareness of it would make us all more civil, safer and cooperative citizens.
There are two overarching principles that are the basis of our uniform traffic code. These two principles lead inevitably to six basic rules of traffic that govern nearly all of our daily traffic experience.
While they are known subconsciously and perhaps intuitively, most folks who operate motor vehicles on our nations roadways are unfamiliar with this more formalized expression of these principles. Even so, they operate by them when following the traffic laws and the traffic control devices found on their way. Here are the arch-principles and the six basic laws of traffic that follow from them.
Travel to the right
Early roads had no lanes, and the width of the entire road could be quite narrow. It became customary in the United States that traffic would stay to the right to reduce chaos, perhaps following established maritime law. Other countries developed a stay to left tradition. From this arch-principle flows these two basic laws of traffic;
1) Always operate on the right-hand side of the roadway, not on the left.
2) When approaching an intersection, position yourself according to the direction in which you want to go. Right-turning drivers are at the right, left-turning drivers are at the left, close to the center of the roadway, and straight-through drivers are between them, as conditions allow.
We practice this every time we take to the public road, but few of us have been exposed to the formalized stating of it. The second basic rule as stated presumes multiple lanes in each direction, but even on streets without lanes we turn right from close to the curb and turn left from the center area of the street.
First come, first served
The public space is a finite resource. How is it to be distributed to the public in a fair way? This arch-principle addresses that. It epitomizes the meaning of public in "public road". Everyone has the right to travel in the public space, and they have a right to a reasonable amount space in front of them, behind them and to their sides in order to travel safely.
3) When two operators are traveling in the same direction in a travel lane, the one behind the other must leave enough space to avoid colliding with the operator in front of him.
Most of us today think of this rule as part of the driver’s prime directive; "Thou shalt not hit things". But it is also a fundamental expression of the right of way on public roads. One cannot simply crash into slower traffic, we must overtake them when it is safe and to do so with due care.
4) When approaching a road that is larger than the one you are on, or carries more traffic, or faster traffic, or is protected by a stop or yield sign, you must yield to traffic on that roadway. Yielding means looking left and right until you see that no traffic is approaching so closely as to constitute a danger.
A person traveling down a road has "the right of way", meaning you can’t just pull out in front of someone and put them in danger. We must allow him access to a reasonable amount of space in front of him to avoid a collision. We operate under this principle all the time, and we have an expectation it will be observed by folks pulling onto the road in front of us. The law grants us the right of way, and the lawful operator respects it.
5) When intending to move your line of travel either left or right upon the roadway, you must yield to traffic in the new line of travel. Yielding means looking in front and behind until you see that both directions are clear, that there is no traffic approaching so closely as to constitute a danger.
We have the right to the space we are occupying within a lane of travel, and it should not be encroached upon.
6) When operating between intersections, drivers position themselves according to their speed relative to other traffic. Parked vehicles are next to the curb, slow drivers are next to them, while the fastest traffic is to the left, next to the centerline as conditions of the roadway allow.
This is the speed positioning rule. It implies that overtaking shall be done on the left, and passing on the right is discouraged. The fastest traffic should return to the right lanes when slower traffic has been cleared.
These six basic rules interact with one another. For example, it is unlawful in many states to change lanes within an intersection. Someone entering the roadway at the intersection may proceed into the lane someone is merging into, inadvertently violating his right of way.
The uniform traffic code, adopted in whole -or with few exceptions to the body of it- by the various states means that a person driving into an unfamiliar place anywhere in the country will be able to operate with little difficulty. The local streets and their working function will seem normal to him.
This system functions just fine without an explanation of the underlying principles; As a result, most people have never thought about, or clearly understood them, as long as the other traffic around them has similar operational characteristics.
What do you mean by traffic, anyway?
Our society has seen fit to divide "traffic" into three basic types; Pedestrians, human powered vehicles and motor vehicles. The vehicle laws make some exceptions and special rules for each class to reflect their differing operational characteristics on our public roads.
Motorists and cyclists must yield right of way to pedestrians crossing the roadway at a crosswalk, for example.  Cyclists are often restricted from using limited access highways because they are not capable of maintaining the minimum speed required for safe operation. People who wish to operate motor vehicles on the public way are subject to licensing and insurance requirements due to the potential damage and injury that the misuse of such vehicles can do to others.
Because motor vehicles are the overwhelming majority of traffic on public roads, people tend to think of "traffic" as only consisting of automobiles and the like. But most states define what they mean by "traffic" in the highway codes to include a much broader variety in modes of travel than just motor vehicles. (Because I am a citizen of Texas, and as I am most familiar with their codes, I will now be speaking less generally and more specifically of the Texas Transportation Code. [TTC]) The TTC defines "traffic" as; "pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles… singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel." 
I doubt most Texas drivers think of horse drawn wagons when they think of traffic! And yet, the law recognizes and allows for a horse drawn wagon to have the same right of way as an automobile, that is, a reasonable amount space in front of them, behind them and to their sides in order to travel safely on the public road.
The traffic laws apply to all these different road users as the nature of their vehicle allows. 
Thwarted expectations lead to anger.
Perhaps because motor vehicles are the most common form of traffic on public streets today, there is a popular expectation that people ought to proceed at or above the speed limit regardless of prevailing conditions.
The necessity of putting a limit on the maximum speed one can travel is almost entirely a creation of the automobile itself. As automobiles became more powerful, all societies determined that speed limits were necessary to protect the innocent public from the destructive power of such fast heavy vehicles. While an out-of-control bicycle can cause severe injury, it can never approach the damage potential of a 4,000 lb. vehicle.
But a maximum speed limit is just that; A cap on how fast a motor vehicle can operate on a public road in perfect conditions, for the purpose of public safety.
Certainly upon a moments reflection, one can describe dozens of conditions that would prevent operating at maximum speed; Inclement weather, poor road surface, blind corners and hills, animals on the roadway, construction activity, slow traffic, trains at railroad crossings, emergency vehicles and even traffic lights! These conditions and more inhibit our forward progress endlessly.
So is it any wonder that a motorist going about with an expectation of traveling at top speed is constantly frustrated and annoyed? Is not this foolish expectation a source of his angst?
This anger often finds a scapegoat when the impedance is non-standard traffic, like a cyclist. A few of our fellow citizens take advantage of their position of power and anonymity inside their automobile to bully and harass lawful travelers on our public roads. Incivility abounds.
Right of way and impeding others.
Not understanding the six basic rules leads to a misunderstanding of the difference between lawful impedance and unlawful impedance.
As we go about our daily travels, we are impeded at every turn. That is, someone using the public road manages to be in the way of faster traffic, forcing us to slow down to avoid hitting them. Nearly all of these conflicts are a lawful interruption of your forward progress. In fact, most traffic conflicts are so common we hardly consider them an impedance at all! That is, as long as the impedance fits your definition of traffic!
If it is an automobile in the lane ahead of you waiting for oncoming traffic before executing a left turn that is causing you to slow down and even stop, it is no big deal. But if it is a cyclist in the lane ahead of you, well, that is a horse of a different color! "Doesn't he know that the roads are designed for cars!" is an oft heard complaint. (Actually, most roads are designed so that trucks can operate on them. Should we be glad truckers deign to allow us to drive our cars on them?)
All operators of vehicles have the same rights and duties on public streets. Parking a vehicle in a travel lane would be against the law, (unlawfully impeding traffic) unless the vehicle was broken down and unable to move out of the way. Traveling unreasonably slowly can also be an illegal impedance, if the vehicle is capable of keeping up with the faster traffic around him. And this is the notion that creates allot of the animosity toward bicycles: Aren’t bicycles impeding traffic because they are moving so much slower than other traffic?
If the cyclist is traveling at a reasonable pace for a bicycle, then it not an illegal impedance. He is operating a slow vehicle, and one that drivers of fast vehicles must give way to as they would to any other slow traffic. You know, buses, farm equipment, street sweepers and the like. The automobile operator has the obligation to respect the cyclist’s right of first come first served, just as he would the driver of any other slow vehicle.
Doesn’t the operator of a bicycle have an obligation to stay out of the way of faster traffic?
Sometimes, but rarely. Most states require cyclists to ride as close to the edge of the roadway as practicable. (Yes, practicable!) This is a reflection of the unique characteristics of the narrow profile of a bicycle. It is the only vehicle on public roads that is required to share a lane side-by-side with automobiles in some circumstances. And it is the only vehicle that is directed by law as to where in the travel lane he must operate.
But because operating within the same travel lane side-by-side with faster traffic is often neither safe nor practicable, the law has made exceptions to those rules. In Texas, those exceptions include, but are not limited to, a condition of the roadway, pedestrians in the lane, surface hazards, parked cars, and if the travel lane is less than fourteen feet wide. 
It may not be obvious to the motorist why the cyclist is not operating closer to the edge of the roadway than he is, but that is really immaterial to his performance of his duty to use due care. If there is not enough room to pass a cyclist with reasonable safety within the lane, the faster traffic must change lanes to pass him. (It is illegal in Texas to straddle the lane.) 
One or more exceptions to the far-to-right rule is present on almost every road in Texas.
Motorists will often get extremely angry when two cyclists are riding abreast in a traffic lane, even though the travel lane is too narrow to allow a car and a bicycle to travel side-by-side. Before slandering the character of the cyclists in front of you, please consider whether you would be able to pass a solo cyclist without changing lanes.
Some have told me that a cyclist must ride on an improved shoulder alongside a roadway if one is available, but a careful reading of the statutes shows that this is false in Texas. A cyclist is permitted to ride on an improved shoulder, but this is not mandatory.  In fact, it could be argued that doing so removes a cyclist from many legal obligations and protections.  I am of the opinion that riding on the shoulder is more dangerous than operating in the roadway. 
Access to the roadway space is allocated on a first come, first served basis for every form of traffic. So if you see a cyclist in the travel lane ahead of you, don’t be afraid to touch your brakes. Calm down, it is really not that hard to pass a cyclist safely! Just treat them as you would any other slow moving vehicle. With but a moments delay, you will be speeding off to the next traffic conflict or red light in no time!
Acknowledgments. I am, as it has been said, standing on the shoulders of giants! The basic principles spring from John Forester, but I have added to his list of five the one about following distance.
Any clarity I have on traffic dynamics and impedance must be credited to MighkWilson, KeriCaffrey and HermanMay who have done most of the heavy lifting for me.
Thanks also to P.M. Summer and everyone on the ChainGuard mailing list who have unlocked many mysterious traffic engineering concepts for me.
 Sec. 541.301. TRAFFIC. In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel. Sec. 541.201. (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.
 Sec. 545.002. OPERATOR. In this chapter, a reference to an operator includes a reference to the vehicle operated by the operator if the reference imposes a duty or provides a limitation on the movement or other operation of that vehicle
 Sec. 552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if: (1) no traffic control signal is in place or in operation; and (2) the pedestrian is: (A) on the half of the roadway in which the vehicle is traveling; or (B) approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible for the vehicle operator to yield. (c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.
Sec. 552.005. CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK. (a) A pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway if crossing a roadway at a place: (1) other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection; or (2) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided. (b) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked crosswalk. (c) A pedestrian may cross a roadway intersection diagonally only if and in the manner authorized by a traffic control device.
 Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY. (a) 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, unless: (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 too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
 Sec. 545.060. DRIVING ON ROADWAY LANED FOR TRAFFIC. (a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane.
 Sec. 545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER. (c) A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to: (3) a bicycle
 The rights and duties spelled out in the TTC only apply to operators of bicycles riding on a "highway". Sec. 551.001. PERSONS AFFECTED. Except as provided by Subchapter C, this chapter applies only to a person operating a bicycle on: (1) a highway; or (2) a path set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles. The TTC defines a highway as "Sec. 541.302. (5) "Highway or street" means the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way any part of which is open to the public for vehicular travel." Which seems to mean from fence-line to fence-line, except for the part about "open to the public for vehicular travel". The TTC defines a shoulder as; "Sec. 541.302. (15) "Shoulder" means the portion of a highway that is: (A) adjacent to the roadway; (B) designed or ordinarily used for parking; (C) distinguished from the roadway by different design, construction, or marking; and (D) not intended for normal vehicular travel." I must conclude then that a shoulder is not a part of the highway, and so, under this interpretation, the rights enjoyed by a cyclist on the roadway may not extend to those riding on the shoulder.
 With the many distractions inside the cabin of the modern automobile, and the tendency of a distracted driver to drift to the right, I am more comfortable in the lane in front of the distracted driver where I am more likely to be noticed than on the shoulder and overlooked. There are many other reasons as well, but isn’t this one sufficient all by itself?
Because the initial report was generated by a paper only local paper, confirming the the details of the reported bicycle ban on East Brenham Road in the City of Manor (Near Austin) has been difficult for those in distant parts of Texas that have been alarmed by the rumored event.
Yesterday evening, after dark, I sent an e-mail to the City of Manor asking for details and and a series of questions. To my astonishment, I received a reply back within ten minutes of my inquiry!
So in the interest of stopping false rumors and promoting the truth, here is Judge Haisler's reply:
I'm out-of-state right now so I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge (I'll double check when I get back to the office).
Manor only restricted bicycles on a small section of roadway along East Brenham due to the dangerous condition of the road (and a recent bicycle injury). Another blogger/magazine editor inaccurately published that Manor banned bicycles and we've been flooded with e-mails all day regarding this very issue. Below are the answers to your questions, please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.
1) What is the history of this ordinance? Passed 10/21/2009 2) What is the reason for the ban? Only restricted on a small section of roadway along East Brenham due to dangerous road conditions 3) Is it to be a temporary ban or is it intended to be permanent? Temporary 4) When does the ordinance take effect? Now (To my knowledge) 5)What are the penalties for violating this law? Any city ordinance has a fine up to $2,000 by Texas law 6)How is an out of town visitor to be alerted to the new law? A sign will be placed on the affected road 7)What are the alternatives for folks who travel about operating the banned vehicles who would otherwise travel on that previously public road? Detour along Old Highway 20
Dustin Haisler Municipal Judge
So there you have it folks! A temporary restriction due to hazardous road conditions.
A glance at Google maps shows that this would be a lovely road to cycle on. I do not yet know what the present condition of the roadway is that would compel local officials to fear for cyclist's safety. I will update this blog if I can find out more.
Those look to be ten foot lanes in a 30 MPH zone, but the speed limit increases to 50 MPH about a mile up the road.
Hats off to the good Judge Haisler who is obviously putting in extra hours to get the truth out on the record. I am happy to assist him in that noble effort!