Since I live about 170 miles north of the City of Manor, I can only fantasize about protesting in person their bicycle ban. But I have some ideas about how to make some noise about it if I lived in Austin.

I would drive my bicycle up to the edge where bicycle use is prohibited. I would dismount and take off my cleats and socks. I would then cross the road to walk to the end of manor’s jurisdiction facing traffic. I would use the roadway as a pedestrian for the length of the banned portion of the road, and then remount to continue on my way.

I would not walk on the shoulder, as that would be far too hazardous for me do in bare feet. (I define the word “tenderfoot”)

I would do it as often as I could. I would be especially keen to do this during rush hours. I would recruit my friends so we could do it in groups.

This would be a passive-aggressive gambit. I want to legally obstruct the traffic flow to the extent that the local travelers would rather I be riding my bicycle than walking it.

Because it is a public road, it is open to every form of traffic, except that of bicycles, which are banned. Pedestrians are traffic according to the Texas Transportation Code. (TTC) [1]

I would expect that the police would be called. If they did not show up by the time I traversed the banned section, I would call and complain about pedestrians on the road myself! (In an especially whiny tone of voice, by the way.)

Police Contact

If the good citizens of Manor have arranged to get bicycles off their precious road, they will no doubt feel wronged if a cyclist can walk upon it. Complaints to the local constable may ensue, and it will be good to establish the legality of pedestrian use of the road early with them.

On the road, as a lawful pedestrian, I would end any interaction with police as soon as possible. Outside of giving them my real name and address, [2] I would not give them any other information. I would ask a lot of questions, and write down the answers. I would write down their name. I would ask why they were stopping me. What law am I in violation of? Can I read the ordinance they are accusing me of breaking? Is our conversation being recorded? What is the procedure of obtaining a copy of this recording?

I would continually ask to be allowed to continue on my way. For example;

They might ask you where you are going. Answer: “That away.” Point up the road. “Can I be back on my way now?”

They might ask you where you are coming from. Answer: “From back there.” Point back down the road. “Can I be back on my way now?”

They may ask you what you are doing out there on this road. Answer: “Traveling on a public road. Can I be back on my way now?”

If they ask you why you didn’t use an alternative road, I would say something like “I chose to use this public road, as is my right, is it not? Are we done here?”

An alternative answer to any of those particular questions would be to answer with a question like this; “Did you stop me for that purpose? To ask where I work, where I am going, where I am coming from, to find out why I am here? May I continue on my way then, please?”

They may say that you are free to go, and then ask you if they could talk to you about it. Take the opportunity to leave. They simply want to tell you to stay out of the way, blah blah blah. A safety lecture. There is no upside for you, and you will be tempted to lower your guard and say things that are not in your best interest.

Provided they don’t make up a law, they will have no reason to give you a citation or a warning. They will settle for a stern safety lecture. I would promptly complain to the officer’s supervisor over this. Stopping a lawful pedestrian under the penalty of law (You have to stop or be subject to arrest.) to be given a safety lecture is an abuse of power.

If I lived a reasonable distance from Manor, (And I had an automobile) I would often drive through that section well below the speed limit. There is no minimum speed limit. [3] The Maximum Speed Limit law [4] should be employed to justify your slower speed through there. [5] Be familiar with the Slow Moving Vehicle laws of Texas and be in compliance with them. [6] Be sure your automobile is current with registration and insurance, and that all lights are in working order.

If you are subject to a traffic stop in your automobile, only answer questions that are pertinent to your stop. For example; “Why are you driving so slow?” (“They banned bicycles on this road due to its condition, so I am just being reasonable and prudent for a road that is in such bad shape.”)

“You have to keep up with other traffic!” (I am required by law to drive in a prudent manner and with due care. I am not responsible for the reckless behavior of other drivers. Why are you allowing them to operate in such cavalier manner at this time and place?)

“You are holding up traffic!” (I am traffic. I am traveling as fast as is safe for the current conditions and potential hazards. The other traffic is violating the maximum speed law of Texas. I would think that your beef would be with them!)

“You have to drive faster through here!” (Are you instructing me to operate my car at a faster speed than I am comfortable with?”) [7]

Not A Cause For Austin?

I hear Austin has a vibrant cycling community. Well connected and engaged in advocacy issues. Perhaps they are OK if a community near them bans bicycles from an otherwise public thoroughfare. They wouldn’t ride there anyway! After all, Manor has no three foot ordinance to protect cyclists, and there are no bike lanes that extend all the way to the City of Manor. It would be impossible to ride there on a bicycle!

What good is there in having a three-foot law when you are not allowed on the street in the first place? What’s the use of getting more butts on bikes when they can only ride to destinations connected with a MUP? Why is this not an issue with you? (Queue the sound of crickets)

Other Things To Do

The City of Manor has a website and a facebook page. Call, write and e-mail them asking when the “temporary” ban will be lifted. Ask them when the road repairs will be completed.

Request that the local news media follow the issue.

Show up at Manor town meetings and request time to petition the town officials about the issue.

Publish pictures of the signs and the “damaged and dangerous” road.

Cyclists and bicycle advocates of Austin; Don’t you think it is about time to make some noise over this? Or are you content to leave well enough alone, hoping they will ban bicycles on your street last?

[1] 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.

[2] In Texas, one must give to a police officer who requests it his real name and current address. You are not required to carry ID, and in this situation I would not. However, if you do not produce evidence that satisfies the officer that you are telling him who you are truthfully, he can detain you until your ID can be confirmed. When you are operating a motor vehicle on a public road, you must be able to produce a driver’s license at any time.

[3] Sec. 545.363 (c) If appropriate signs are erected giving notice of a minimum speed limit adopted under this section, an operator may not drive a vehicle more slowly than that limit except as necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

[4] Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing. (b) An operator: (1) 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; and (2) 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. (c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if: (1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing; (2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve; (3) the operator is approaching a hill crest; (4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and (5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

[5] As you can see in the footnote above, (b)(1) one cannot drive faster than prudent for potential hazards that may exist. One hazard present is road surface conditions so treacherous as to necessitate the banning of bicycles. It is reasonable to expect that motorists could encounter pedestrians on the road as well, a condition (c)(5) in the statute above, in light that cyclists cannot ride their bicycles there.

[6] Sec. 545.051 (b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Note the word “or” in the above statute. If you are in a motor vehicle, and you are on a laned roadway, as the road in question is, you are in compliance with this statute if you are in the rightmost lane available. If the roadway is unlaned, then the “curb or edge of roadway” part applies.

Sec. 545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (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.

By driving slower than other traffic on the road, you are claiming that, in the first place, the road is too dangerous for bicycles according to the City of Manor and their posted highway signs. Prudence would dictate that automobile operators should use extra caution on a road whose surface is in such bad shape.

Secondly, it would not be unreasonable to expect to encounter a pedestrians on this road, as cyclists would be afoot and there is no sidewalk. A special hazard, a pedestrian, may exist.(See Sec.545.351 (c)(5))

[7] Traveling at the posted maximum speed limit is only allowed when conditions are perfect. Anything that would mar that perfection will demand a slower maximum speed limit than the posted speed limit. Perhaps the Officer could explain to a judge how a road who’s surface is too dangerous for bicycles to safely traverse is simultaneously the perfect road conditions for a car, thus allowing the posted maximum speed limit to prevail?

It Is Hard To Plan For Traffic Stops

So when I was done with the things I had to do in downtown Ennis, I headed out to Waxahachie for an appointment I had there. With a 18 mile trip before me, I figured that an hour and a half would be plenty of time.

I figured wrong.

This happened on Tuesday December 16.

I took Hwy 287; a four lane road with a center median and all the look of a limited access freeway except for all the driveways and cross streets. No signal lights for ten miles. Sixty five mile per hour posted speed limit. A shoulder of varying width from six inches to ten feet. A rumble strip straddling the transition from a resurface job, which in practice meant that the inside of the rumble strip was a couple inches higher than the outside edge. An occasional right and left turn only lane. Twelve foot wide travel lanes. Real smooth pavement on the roadway. [1]

My appointment was at three in the afternoon, and I rolled out of downtown Ennis just after one thirty.

As is usual when I take the lane on a road with a shoulder, I was frequently honked at. Isn’t the freedom of expression great? It makes it so much easier to spot the idiots!

What was unusual is that about half of the commercial trucks chose to identify their IQ! That is way high in my experience. As a percentage, maybe five to ten percent of private vehicles honked. The usual number chose to pass me on the right on the shoulder which is a crime in Texas. [2]

The First Stop

After a few miles. A State trooper’s vehicle passed me. He slowed and used a crossover to wait for me. As I passed his location, he got on his PA system and said; “For safety’s sake, will you please ride on the shoulder?”

I emphatically shook my head no and continued on my way.

When traffic permitted, he pulled onto the roadway and displayed his lights. I stopped and waited for him. [3] I regret that I am unable to remember his name.

“It’s dangerous to ride out there” he said.

“It’s even more dangerous on the shoulder.” I said. “Do you think drivers are so incompetent that they will run over objects in their path?”

“That’s what the rumble strips are for- to protect the idiots from themselves!”

He then painted a preposterous scenario. He said that if someone panicked and traffic backed up then I would be guilty of impeding traffic.

I pointed out one of Texas’s laws in the Texas Transpiration Code (TTC) and we discussed it for a while. I am reluctant to share it here until after my ticket is resolved with the city of Ennis. I see no point in helping the DA in convicting me by pointing out statutes I will defend myself with.

He then asked me for my ID. Good for him! He didn’t ask me for a driver’s license! I promptly began digging into my backpack to get it.

He asked me where I was going. “That away”’ I said, indicating down the road. He didn’t pursue the issue, as it was really immaterial to the traffic stop. [4]

Handing him my ID, he said that he would be writing me a warning.

“What is the charge?” I asked.

“Impeding traffic.”

“Will you be citing the section of the transportation code?”

“I’ll have to look it up for you”

As he returns to his vehicle, I pull out my camera. His dashcam is taking pictures of me, I am taking pictures of him.



About then another police unit pulls up. Officer XXX of the Ennis police department gets out and walks up to me.

What’s he saying to you?” he asks, indicating the trooper.

“He thinks I should be riding on the shoulder.”

Sergeant Joe Sifuentes informs me that Ennis police are getting a lot of calls complaining about me. Then, deciding the state trooper has things under control, wishes me a Merry Christmas and leaves.

The Texas Trooper returns and says that he can’t find the statute he was looking for, and he tells me I am free to go. He urges me to ride on the shoulder where he believes I will be safer. I thank him for his concern and wish him a Merry Christmas, and at the next gap in traffic, I merge onto the roadway again.



I found the State Trooper’s demeanor to be exemplary. He was polite, friendly and professional. Nonetheless, I think he felt it was his greater duty to enhance traffic flow rather than to expect road users to follow the rules.

The Second Stop

Soon enough, business 287 peels off of Hwy 287. It becomes a narrow two lane 55 MPH shoulderless chipsealed road for about two miles, and then it changes into a 30 mph narrow two lane residential road. It was on this residential part when a Waxahachie police officer pulls me over.

This young officer seemed to be in his mid twenties. He asked me to step off the roadway so he could talk to me safely rather than standing in front of his cruiser in view of the dashcam.

“Are Waxahachie drivers so incompetent that they can’t avoid a pedestrian on the street?”

I think this question derailed his agenda. He took a moment to get started again.

“Are you coming from Ennis?” I nod in affirmation. “We have been getting a lot of calls about you, they say you are wandering all over the road.”

“I wasn’t wandering at all, I was riding in the center of the lane, just like they were.”

“Your supposed to ride on the right half of the lane.”

I deny that his understanding is correct. “You should refresh your memory. The part you want is section 551.103.”

This rattles him as well, and he is now clearly uncomfortable with the conversation. He quickly ends the traffic stop, and I again resume my trip. Alas, I am too late for the meeting and my trip was for naught.

I strike up a conversation with someone while I rest, and perhaps get too involved in it, as it is dusk when I begin my return leg. I re-trace my path onto business 287. Only a couple of idiots identify themselves.

I turn on my rear blinky just before I merge into traffic on Hwy 287.

Another ten miles of serial rudeness ensues.

The Third Stop

As I exit Hwy 287 onto the business 287 near Ennis, I am again pulled over for a traffic stop. It is Sergeant Joe Sifuentes again! He doesn’t even bother to get out of his cruiser. He is polite and professional, but he is responding to the urging of dispatchers. I doubt he would've pulled me over on his own initiative.

He too proposes a preposterous analysis. He asked me why all those cars were taking evasive action, changing lanes, slamming on their breaks and swerving onto the shoulder? I said it was because the drivers were incompetent and impatient.

No, he said, it was because of you! I denied that it was my fault that they were passing me illegally; On the right and on the shoulder. Who’s fault was it then, he asked, incredulous at my reply.

I said that I had no power to steer an automobile. Those motorists have a legal duty to observe my right-of-way.

He then asked me for my name and such, as he needed to write a report of the stop so they have a record of my behavior in case something were to happen to me.

I laughed out loud at this. “So that I can be blamed if someone runs into me?”

Just at this point, our communication broke down due to an unfortunate collection of events. I spoke something to him and laughed again. He said something to me at the same time (cross-talked) and so I did not hear what he said, and some traffic passed by further muddying the sound for each of us. But he got angry that I laughed, thinking I was reacting to what he said.

I was realizing at that moment that his “windshield view” common sense was going to prevent him from ever believing that being legally in the way was safer than being out of the way on the shoulder. I was laughing at the absurdity of my attempting to convince him. Sadly, it caused him to harden his attitude toward me.

“Will you be laughing when someone runs you down?” He asked sharply.

“Do you ride a bicycle?” I asked him. He said he never does. I said; “I have ten thousand miles on that very bicycle right there, ridden in just this same way, and I am still here to talk about it. In this conversation, one of us is an expert at cycling and the other one is not.”

After a few more sage words of advice for me along the lines of the futility of being right but dead, he returned my ID and I continued on my way.

Reflections About These Events

Ignorance about most traffic laws is widespread in my community, and when it comes to bicycle specific traffic law the ignorance is even more acute.

It is first made apparent by the honking. For example, on the two lane near Waxahachie, a motorist a fair distance back honks at me. Short and polite: Honk-honk. After a moment, again: Honk-honk. And then, when I don’t disappear into thin air (It is hard to know what this motorist expected, as we were traveling on a ten foot wide lane- he would have had to encroach onto oncoming lanes no matter where I was laterally in the lane!): HONK hooonk hoooonk!

Many honk at me while sailing past me, unhindered, in the left lane. Perhaps they are expressing joy at finally coming across someone who is driving on the public road in a lawful manner!

In my presence, many many traffic laws were broken. But it was me, one of the few legal drivers, who was pulled over.

The State Trooper pulled me over on his own initiative, perhaps with genuine concern for me. I am sure that when he initiated his stop he was certain I was breaking some law, and he may have even had one or two in mind that failed to pan out.

The traffic stop by the Waxahachie police and the stop (Two stops?) by Ennis police were in response from phone calls dialed in to 911 lines. But once my behavior was observed, neither attempted to cite me for any offence. They just tried to convince me to ride where I believe it to be a compromise of my personal safety, for the purpose of enhancing the convenience of automobile drivers.

Mind you, I had no choice to opt out of the lectures. I had to stop under penalty of law. Bicyclists are just out for a lark anyway, right? It is folks in automobiles that are going somewhere important.

None of the illegal driving by licensed motorists were cited. Sergeant Joe Sifuentes even notes that he saw such behavior himself. He ignored all that, and pulled me over instead, even though he had not observed any unlawful behavior on my part.

Two officers commented that their departments had received many calls from motorist complaining that I was driving my bicycle in a legal manner. Why did that require a response by a patrol officer? Once the officer observed my driving, why did they continue with the stop?

Why couldn’t dispatchers tell motorists that bicycles are allowed to drive on the roadway?

The reason is that the whole of them are ignorant to what Texas law says. Because bicycle driving is uncommon, it is assumed that it is uncommon because it is illegal.

The result is that law abiding citizens are delayed, harassed and abused by law enforcement and by mistakenly outraged motorists. Meanwhile, the Texas Bicycle Coalition spends it’s legislative activities trying to pass new laws that are a simply a re-statement of current law.

Perhaps our bicycle advocates could work to change the real discrimination we Texas cyclists face. You know, something that would actually make Texas better for their constituents. (I know, I’m making crazy-talk again.)

Conquering the Frontiers of Ignorance

Perhaps our local police could become familiar with bicycle specific law if they are going to do something about scofflaw cyclists, and if they intend to respond to the uninformed opinion of angry Texans on the other end of a phone line.

I’ll even help them with a heads up for where to look:
Sec. 551 with a special emphasis on Sec. 551.103 (a)(4)(A) – I would suggest you read that part two or three times.

You should also become familiar with these sections which are important to understand when you are dealing with slow vehicles on the public road: Sec. 541.301, Sec. 545.002, Sec. 545.051, Sec. 545.058, Sec. 545.060, and Sec. 545.363

Ignorance can be defined as not knowing what you don’t know. One is not doomed to remain in ignorance forever. Those statutes there can start you on your path to enlightenment, if you want it.

[1] I am using the legal definition of the word “roadway”. From the TTC:
Sec. 541.302. (11) "Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.

[2] Sec. 545.058

[3] Note to SteveA. I watched to see if he was pulling onto the shoulder before I crossed the edge line. As I did later as well.

[4] In Texas, one is required to tell a law enforcement officer his real name and his current address. We are not required to produce ID of any kind, but the officer is allowed to detain you until your identity can be confirmed. When you are operating a motor vehicle, you must be able to produce a driver’s license on demand.

A Major Step In Austin!

Congratulations to the City of Austin - on Thursday, October 22, 2009,
Austin became the first city in the State of Texas to adopt a Safe Passing
ordinance! This means that Safe Passing will now be the law of the land in
Austin, TX.

Thanks to the Austin City Council, especially Mayor Lee Leffingwell and
Councilmembers Mike Martinez and Chris Riley, and city staff for working with
BikeTexas to make this a reality.

This is a major step, but it is only the beginning. BikeTexas intends to
work hard to duplicate this success in cities and towns all over the state
before the next legislative session.

So trumpets the Texas Bicycle Coalition. (TBC) With such wonderful successes, TBC is in danger of becoming irrelevant, because what they define as a success looks exactly the same as what went on before!


I know it is fashionable lately to pass laws without reading the actual text of the legislation, but words do matter. The devil, they say, is in the details.

Into the weeds

The city ordinance reads:

PART 1. Section 12-1-35 of the City Code is amended to read:
§ 12-1-35 VULNERABLE ROAD USERS.
In this section, a Vulnerable Road User means:
a pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger;
(2) a person on horseback;
(3) a person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or unprotected farm equipment; or
(4) a person operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor-assisted scooter.
An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall:
(1) 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; or
(2) pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.
(c) For the purpose of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance is at least:
(1) three feet if the operator’s vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or
(2) six feet if the operator’s vehicle is a truck, other than a light truck, or a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Texas Transportation Code Section 522.003.
(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 is in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.
(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 motor vehicle making the right-hand turn.
(f) An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a manner that:
(1) is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable road user; or
(2) threatens a vulnerable road user.
(g) An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an intersection of roadways.
(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.

Well, it could've been worse! They could've repeated every section of the Texas Transportation Code! (TTC) They relented and only repeated some of them.

Even deeper into the weeds- comparing the new to the old

(b)(1) An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall: (1) 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 covered in the TTC by Sec. 545.060. (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; and (2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely. and by 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.

(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.

This is amply covered in the TTC this way: Sec. 545.053. (a) An operator passing another vehicle: (1) shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and (2) may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.

(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 is in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.

How is this any different from the TTC? From Sec. 545.152. 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.

Oh, it changes the word "vehicle" to vulnerable road user. But bicycles ARE vehicles in the TTC, [*] and it is a violation of the TTC to strike pedestrians on the roadway as seen in 545.351. (b)(2) above.

(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 motor vehicle making the right-hand turn.

This provision, besides being overly wordy, is also redundant. Sec. 545.103. 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. The biggest difference is that Austin's law applies exclusively to motor vehicles, but the TTC applies to all vehicles. Is that really a difference that matters?

(f) An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a manner that: (1) is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable road user; or (2) threatens a vulnerable road user.

I am glad that these behaviors are now prohibited in Austin! But if they were already illegal, why was this language included in the ordinance? Does this give license to pedestrians and roller-skaters to intimidate or harass others? Or are motorists the only citizens in Austin that are restricted from being a bully?

(g) An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an intersection of roadways.

As before, Sec. 545.351. (b)(2)

What to make of all this

All of these provisions found in the TTC are available to protect cyclists in every city in Texas right now. The question really is, in the light of the above comparisons, why are our advocates spending time, energy and treasure in passing laws that mirror those already present but are not being enforced? Is this really the path to better cycling conditions on Texas roads?

So if the TBC is doing what is obviously not going to do anything meaningful for Texas cyclists, why are they doing it? Who benefits? Aside from TBC doing make-work and calling it a "major step" in order to spice up their fund-raising literature, what have they achieved of lasting benefit for Austin cyclists? I accuse the TBC of doing nothing of substance for those they claim to represent with such useless laws.

We need better advocates.

We need advocates that demand that the traffic laws already on the books be enforced by local police before writing and passing redundant legislation.

We need advocates that demand local district attorneys uphold all of the laws, as is their duty.

We need advocates that demand judges follow the law, as is also their sworn duty.

We need advocates that will work for cyclist's equality under the law. Now that Austin cyclist's ability to recover damages is contingent on their ability to demonstrate they were operating lawfully, (Paragraph h) will the TBC work to have bicycle traffic laws enforced too? Or does the TBC have no more responsibility for their actions once the laws they shepherd through legislative bodies are passed?

We need advocates that are willing to do the hard work of building broad-based and inclusive coalitions to change our social acceptance of inattentive driving. We are all stake-holders in a more civil public road, even if we are automobile drivers only. Besides the obvious economic benefits of fewer wrecks as expressed in property damage, broken bodies and broken lives, there would be more resources available for progress rather than just cleaning up the mess. Car insurance costs would decline. Less treasure and talent used in emergency rooms patching up the injured can mean more resources available for the sick. More faces around the dinner table.

We need bicycle advocates that address the root problem. We need advocates that can dream big dreams. We need advocates who understand that our streets are for people- all the people- and see that making our streets better for all of us make it better for cyclists too.

We need advocates who want to do big things. To make changes that will matter.

The Texas Bicycle Coalition thinks this new ordinance in Austin is a major step.

How pitiful our advocates are!

*The TTC defines a bicycle as: Sec. 541.201. (2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.　

This is a subset of the larger category of "vehicle: Sec. 541.201. (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.

Utah's Bleak Finances Are Even Worse Than Previously Thought

What is a state government to do when it is facing revenues that are sixteen percent less than they had projected three months ago- and those projections supposedly factored in the Great Recession we are enduring?

Consider the words from this article:

Salt Lake County's mayor is now asking for a $13.4 million property tax increase, despite nixing a similar proposal from the county council months ago.

Peter Corroon said the county simply can't cut anymore after trimming jobs, wages, 401(k) contributions, open days at county outdoor pools and Sundays at 10 county recreation centers.

"At some point you have to say there are things we won't sacrifice," Corroon told KSL Newsradio in an interview Wednesday. "I said I won't sacrifice public safety and I won't sacrifice programs for our seniors and our children, so that's where we drew the line."

The 2010 budget would provide for the operation of the newly reopened Oxbow Jail and the Salt Lake County Fair.

Corroon said Salt lake County is now "in the eye of the storm" when it comes to the economic downturn. The 2009 county budget was $801 million. The proposed 2010 budget stands at $638 million.

If you were expecting some new bicycle facilities to be built for you in Salt Lake County, do you think they would've survived the one hundred sixty three million dollar budget cut? Yeah, I don't either.

More locally:

Texans continue to spend and buy less, as the state reported a 12.5 percent drop in sales tax revenue in September.
The decrease matches August’s decline, the largest this year.

The state comptroller’s office announced Friday (October 9, 2009) that it collected $1.47 billion in sales tax in September, compared with $1.68 billion in September 2008. The collections are for sales made in August.

Note, Texans enjoy being relieved of any state income tax.

One theme I have noticed in all of the news is a continued mantra that the bottom is in, we will be up and out next year. I believe this is wishful thinking in the face of contrary evidence.

It was reported today that last week alone, there were more than half a million folks who lost their jobs. The four week average of new job losses is more than five hundred thousand pink slips handed out each week.

The government hands out a report today that trumpets the economy grew last quarter, but the internal data shows that disposable personal income decreased in real terms quarter over quarter by 7.4%! That is an enormous swing in purchasing power and not in the right direction.

Other claims of new housing starts and exports in the report seem to be false as corroborating data (Sales at Home Depot and Lowe's, and truck/train freight and port activity show no corresponding improvement.) cannot be found. Swings of twenty percent quarter over quarter seem implausible as well.

The American consumer is in hibernation, and I do not yet see any sign of spring. There is way too much of everything in the economy except for debt.

This elected officials are hearing the siren song of the headlines and subsequently engaging in hopeful denial. They hope that if they can hunker down the revenue stream will improve and they can avoid the painful choices that must be faced. The truth is, they will not be able to to put it off any longer.

Houston is bankrupt. That city is broke. They will never be able to pay all of their obligations. They now have no alternative to bankruptcy court to unload them. Each Houston citizen owes five thousand three hundred thirty eight dollars. For comparison, each California resident owes two thousand five hundred twenty eight dollars each. (Their financial peril is somewhat different, as states have no recourse to bankruptcy court.)

In fact, municipal budgets throughout this country are so strained by pension obligations alone, they may not even be able to fund infrastructure maintenance projects like filling potholes. (Not that anyone would notice a decrease in service!)

So if painting lines on the streets, painting sharrows in the door zone or paving long narrow recreational playgrounds is what you are advocating for, how can you do to remain relevant in this environment?

May I make a few suggestions? Work to make traffic laws equitable for all vehicles on the public way. Get rid of far-to-right laws and discriminatory mandatory bike lane laws. Either repeal mandatory helmet laws or make them mandatory for all who operate any kind of vehicle on the road.

Demand that the laws that already exist be enforced. In Texas, the due care clause of the maximum speed statute. (Sec. 545.351) Enforcement of illegal lane position by motor vehicles. (Sec. 545.060) The safe passing law already on the books. (Sec. 545.053[a][2]) Demand accountability from our police, district attorneys and judges for failing to perform their sworn duty to uphold these laws. And yes, demand enforcement of scofflaw cycling behavior. [*]

In these difficult times, can we do nothing about the daily carnage on our streets? Can we not form coalitions with interested parties to change the general incivility on the roadway? What civic group is so callous as to not be a part of such a movement? What insurance company likes paying so many claims? What medical or religious group would back away from such an effort that would benefit everyone in out community? Don't lobby the legislators, start a media campaign!

Bribe the new cyclists on the streets with gifts like lights or helmets for attending bicycle skills seminars. A skilled newbie is more likely to enjoy cycling and stick with it. More butts on bikes and all that.

Or maybe you have even better ideas! Good, because the old way of asking for special treatment and infrastructure won't advance anything for a while.

* I find it astonishing that so-called advocates think that asking for crackdowns on the most dangerous behaviors on public street by cyclists is bad form. I thought you were the ones who really cared about your constituents well being!

Why I Am Glad SB 488 Is Dead

.
.

I still cannot see why this law is necessary. Why shouldn't our "advocates" at Texas Bicycle Coalition (TBC) be demanding the vigorous enforcement of present laws, which would have an immediate positive impact on cyclist's safety, rather than lard up the transportation code with a bunch of redundancies?

"Sec. 545.053. PASSING TO THE LEFT; RETURN; BEING PASSED.

(a) An operator passing another vehicle:
(1) shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and
(2) may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle."

Gee, why is this perfectly straightforward law not being enforced, and how would a three foot rule be any more enforceable? When a cyclist is struck by an overtaking automobile, why isn't the motorist given an automatic citation for this crime?

"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." (f)(g)

Why are there no prosecutions under this statute? When will the "bicycle advocates" that are so concerned with our well being press our DAs to enforce and prosecute this law? That would help us now, not next September!

"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." (e)

How many right hook violations have been prosecuted under this statute? Why is the redundant wording needed in SB 488? Right hooks are already a crime in Texas!

"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."

Bicycles are vehicles, and thus traffic, so "dooring" is already a crime in Texas. The words “vulnerable user” was substituted for the second instance of the word “traffic”. This redundant language was dropped from the final version of the bill, but I wonder why it was proposed in the first place!

"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:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane." (b.1)

Why can't this statute be applied to motorists who buzz cyclists by straddling the lane?

"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." (d)

The passage of SB 488 would not have altered this statute in any meaningful way, except to have it apply to pedestrians, and it would not have increased the likelihood of prosecutions.

If a bike lane is present, SB 488 would have allowed overtaking traffic to pass any "vulnerable road user" that was in it without deviating from their line of travel. (b.1) Trucks and buses could legally pass a bicyclist as close as the lane stripe. Ouch! That would make newbie bicyclists confident and enthused about their new cycling experience, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, SB 488 would have eroded the the legitimacy of the cyclist as an operator of a vehicle by codifying our classification with pedestrians. (a.1) I cannot see how this would be good for the preservation of our liberties.

I expect better advocacy from TBC. When they say that SB 488 would make Texas safer for cycling, it makes me think they are lying to me. New laws won't change anything- as I have demonstrated, they are not even enforcing present laws, why would we think new ones would be treated any different?

This legislation was more smoke than substance, and TBC is using it as a tool for recruitment of new members and more donations. Has TBC lost their way? Their claim that they are a “non-profit, member-supported organization whose mission is to promote bicycling access, safety, and education” is ringing hollow to me.

The only education that has resulted from this is to give the false notion that it is not against the law to buzz a cyclist! We have some friends in Austin, don't we!

I want our TBC to demand that current traffic laws be enforced vigorously. I want them to remind our police, our DAs, our judges and the public that violating the above traffic laws is a crime! I want laws that are designed to make bicyclists operate in a safe manner to be vigorously enforced. Wrong way riding, sidewalk riding and operating at night without lights. Enforce these laws to avoid needless injury and death.

I want a real effort made to make current laws work before we go messing about with new ones. -Ones that have inevitable unintended consequences like how SB 488 would interact with bike lanes. I want TBC to address the needs, and defend the liberties, of all cyclists everywhere in Texas, not just the agenda of the Austin cycling scene.

Perhaps we need better advocates.





The text of SB 488-



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT relating to the operation of a motor vehicle in the vicinity of a vulnerable road user; providing penalties. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Section 545.428 to read as follows:

Sec. 545.428. VULNERABLE ROAD USERS.

(a) In this section, "vulnerable road user" means:

(1) a pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger;

(2) a person on horseback;

(3) a person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle, including a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or unprotected farm equipment; or

(4) a person operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor-assisted scooter.

(b) An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall:

(1) 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; or

(2) pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.

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

(1) three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or

(2) 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.

(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.

(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.

(f) An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a manner that:

(1) is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable road user; or

(2) threatens a vulnerable road user.

(g) An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an intersection of roadways.

(h) A violation of this section is punishable under Section 542.401 except that:

(1) if the violation results in property damage, the violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500; or

(2) if the violation results in bodily injury, the violation is a Class B misdemeanor.

(i) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.

(j) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code or the Penal Code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.

SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.