Again While Minding My Own Business

Tuesday August 13, 2013

I am enjoying a ride through Richland Hills (a suburb of Ft. Worth Texas) going south on Hwy 183 at around 3:30 pm. It is sunny, there is a mild south wind and traffic is mild and calm. There is a 45 MPH posted speed limit.

This is my first experience on this road, and I like it. A four lane with a median and nice 11 foot bicycle/automobile lanes. I am driving in my classic Mike Beck Disapproved lane position- Yes, I am in the left tire track! (GASP!) I am wearing long sleeves, long pants and no helmet.

BLAAT! BLAAT!

At the sound of the electronic klaxon I do a shoulder check to see flashing red lights. I am being pulled over by one of Richland Hills finest.

I stop, and discover I am quite nervous. I work at calming myself. I remind myself to keep my mouth shut as much as possible. "Don't argue," I tell myself, "and don't make statements, try to couch everything as a question..."

The officer gets out and walks up to me and says; "Traffic was piling up behind you; You can't be blocking traffic that way."

"Was traffic having trouble passing me in the next lane?" I ask.  My jitters are going away and I am returning to a calmer state.

"Well, a bunch of cars almost swerved into you back there."

"Am I to be held responsible for the actions of others?" I speak in an even tone. He seems surprised at my question.

"Well, I'm concerned about your safety."

"I doubt that." I say in a disgusted tone. (I couldn't help myself.) He gives me a funny look.

"You from around here?"

"Yes"

"Do you have ID?"

"Yes"

"Can I see it?"

I reluctantly hand it over.

"Wait here, I'll be right back."

He retreats back to his patrol SUV to discover that there are no warrants out for my arrest.

After a short while he returns and says; "I have taken down your information just in case you get hit down the road." Handing me my ID he says; "You are free to go, but it would be safer if you used the shoulder."

"Actually it wouldn't." I say.

"I am not here to argue with you. You obviously dislike cops, and I just don't want you to be hurt."

This time I manage to keep my mouth shut. But it was hard.

I put away my ID, wait for a gap in traffic and proceed on my way.

Police Contact

I was stopped on the way home last night at about 10:15.

I will hide the officer's identity to shield him from public ridicule. I will call him "Officer Fife".

Officer Fife works for the Richardson Police Department.

I was traveling south on Plano Road approaching Beltline when he pulled me over.

"You must have a blinking red rear light to operate on the roadway at night. Get off the road and onto the sidewalk."

"I am not required to have a rear light on my bicycle."

"Like all vehicles, you have to have a rear light. You must ride on the sidewalk. If there is no sidewalk, you must ride on the other side of the road against traffic."

"There is no law requiring such."

"It is a City of Richardson law."

"Does city law supersede state law?"

"Our laws conform to state law."

"Could you show me the statute, please?"

"I'm not going to argue with you. Do I have to write you a ticket?"

"For what violation?"

"Very well, show me your ID."

"I have no ID on me."

"Take your bicycle onto the sidewalk and out of the street. I'll deal with you there."

So I walked my bicycle to the sidewalk and lay it down. I waited while he got his notebook out.

"Name?" I told him my name.

"Driver's licence number?" I told him I had no driver's licence.

"No driver's licence? Any ID issued by Texas?" "None" I said.

"Birthday? Address?" I gave them to him.

With that he retreated to his squad car. After a few minutes he returned.

"I don't have time to deal with stuff like this, so I'm letting you go with a verbal warning."

"We disagree on what the requires of me."

"I told you what the law says."

"What does Sec 551.104 say?"

"I'm not going to argue with you. Stay on the sidewalk!"

"Do you just make up laws?"

He stalked off in a angry huff.

I waited until he was out of sight, and then I continued on my way in a lawful manner, as I had before. I was delayed about 15 minutes.

Sec. 551.104. SAFETY EQUIPMENT. (a) A person may not operate a bicycle unless the bicycle is equipped with a brake capable of making a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
(b) A person may not operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle is equipped with:
(1) a lamp on the front of the bicycle that emits a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet in front of the bicycle; and
(2) on the rear of the bicycle:
(A) a red reflector that is:
(i) of a type approved by the department; and
(ii) visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams of motor vehicle headlamps from all distances from 50 to 300 feet to the rear of the bicycle; or
(B) a lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of the bicycle.

First, Stop Digging

I am concerned with the City of Ennis’s reputation. They seem to be garnering the mantel of a backward jurisdiction with a Barney Fife police force.

I resist that notion. I still want to believe that the men and women on our police force are sincerely serving our community with personal integrity and with honor. But it is hard.

To maintain that notion, I am clinging to the idea that they have inept leadership, and those who ought to know better are allowing otherwise fine officers to look foolish.

On Tuesday, March 9, Officer McCurdy arrested me. He did not tell me what law I had allegedly broken. After cooling my jets in the Ennis city jail for 26 hours, (10 AM Tuesday to just after 12:30 PM on Wednesday, according to my phone records.) I was keen to look at the citation to see what the particular charge was.

I was not given one.

What I did receive was a “personal recognizance” bond form with the charge “Impeding traffic/Bike Offence” in Municipal Judge Johnson’s handwriting and his signature. This was different than last time. I wonder: Was my previous arrest handled in an irregular manner, or was this latest time the irregular one?

I suspect, but I can’t be certain, so this is somewhat speculative: Why was I held for about three hours after the PR bond was signed? I think they would have held me longer but it was easier to release me than to make a run to McDonalds for another dollar value menu hamburger.

So Friday I stop at the court to file seven motions and plead not guilty to this charge. I ask the court clerk for my case number. She runs my case envelope through the copy machine. Here is what my case envelope says:

E0011786 01 100053359
Fin: 100.00 Cst: 94.00 Due: 194.00

BATES, REED

Officer: MCCURDY, JASON E
FAILURE TO KEEP BICYCLE ON RIGHT SIDE OFROAD

Violation Date: 3/9/2010

Yeah, that charge has me scratching my head too. As absurd as it is, they avoided an even worse charge that the police were considering, and perhaps this is just a reflection of it.

I wonder who changed it to “Impeding Traffic/Bike Offense”. Was it Judge Johnson cleaning it up after closely questioning the circumstances surrounding my arrest by interviewing the four officers who were present? Did he interview any of the 911 callers who accuse me of impeding them?

Who else has the authority to change the charges? Toby Mash, our city attorney?

My recollection of how it went down

With unsubstantiated anonymous reports of death and mayhem pouring in to the Ennis 911 system, three patrol units and four Ennis city officers responded to suppress the latest crime wave on Hwy 287.

Now while I always strive to be polite, some of my friends have counseled me that my style of presenting my case can feel confrontational. Making declarative statements of what the law actually says to a police officer can get their backs up, apparently. “You may be right, Reed, but they think they know the law. You can’t appear to be schooling the teacher.”

So I am resolved to defend myself with Officer McCurdy by avoiding declarative statements by asking questions instead. (Y’all can see how well that worked out!)

So after I take his picture, I concentrate on presenting my case through questions.

Chip “Why did you stop me?”
OM “We have been getting a lot of 911 calls.”
Chip “Couldn’t the 911 operator inform them that bicycles are allowed to operate on the roadway in Texas?”
OM “We are concerned with your safety.”
Chip “Oh, you stopped me on a safety violation?”
OM “Yes. You were riding out there”; He pointed to the roadway. “Why weren’t…”
Chip, interrupting; “Now you are talking about traffic law, not a safety violation!”
OM “… you riding over here on the shoulder?”
Chip “So did you stop me for a traffic violation or a safety violation?”
OM “Traffic law is about safety.”
Chip “How wide is that travel lane?”
OM “I’m not here to argue about the law.”

Officer McCurdy seemed a little flustered, and unsure of himself. He tried a different tack.

OM “You know tractors, right? They have to have those slow moving vehicle signs on them.”
Chip, displaying the back of his messenger bag that has a 7” by 7” triangle on it; “You mean one of these?”
OM “Yes, but bigger, you need to have one of those to ride out there.”
Chip “So you stopped me because I have an equipment violation?”
OM, looking hopefully toward arriving backup officers; “No…” He seems sorry he brought it up.
Chip “So if I get a big triangle, I can drive on the roadway?”
OM “No, I’m not here to argue about the law.”

Enter Sgt. Pillow. She came toward the front of officer McCurdy’s unit, but would not advance closer to us than standing beside the front wheel. I suspect she was avoiding being viewed by the dash camera. She and I exchange greetings with each other by name.

SP “Mr. Bates, we have been through this before, you need to be riding over here.” She points to the shoulder.

(I want to say that I replied that shoulder use was optional, and I chose not to, but frankly I don’t remember what I said here. I will take the time to transcribe the dash-cam audio when it is made available to me. I hope what I write here will correspond to the audio. I will post it so you can see how well I did.)

SP “This is a designated bike lane here. You are required to ride on it.”
Chip, in astonishment “Where are the signs designating it? How is the public to know it’s a bike lane?”
SP “It is a designated bike lane”

She holds a quick roadside conference with the other two officers present.

OM distracts me “This is a wide shoulder. It’s in pretty good shape. It’s pretty clean. Why won’t you ride on it?
Chip “It is more dangerous than the roadway.”

Officer McCurdy dismisses all of my objections as inadequate, and I am irked that I am being required to justify opting “no” to what by state law is optional. I finally ask him what vehicles are required to use the shoulder. “I’m not here to argue the law.” He said, as he went to consult Sgt. Pillow.

He returns after a moment and places me under arrest. Outside of “OK” and “thank you”, I say not a word more. Officer McCurdy never tells me what I am being arrested for, and so for the next 26 hours I am hoping it will be a Sec.551.103 (a)(4)(A) violation of failure to use a designated bike lane. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

Which behavior causes the most harm?

It is clear by their roadside behavior, the line officers are not getting guidance from their leadership other than “get him off the road!” These officers are casting about for any excuse to arrest me and make the 911 calls stop. But the way charges are changed after the fact, why do they even bother?

Clearly, what the law actually says, allows and prohibits has no importance at the street level. The Ennis police apparently are buffeted by forces beyond all that nitpicky legal stuff. Any excuse , no matter how ridiculous, is seized on to justify arrest.

And our judge and city attorney clean it up and back them up.

Logic and reason likewise are unable to deter this manic imperative to put the irksome uppity cyclist in his place. Could someone point to the harm that requires an arrest be made? With at least 20 hours of exposure on Hwy 287 and more than 300 miles expended crossing it, who has been harmed? Bring forth the victims!

If operating on that roadway were such a perilous activity, why am I still able to write this after all that exposure? Shouldn’t I be road kill by now?

But with the international attention being drawn to the City of Ennis, are continued arrests worth the damage they are causing to our reputation? It is easy to draw images of Barney Fife blundering about. Negative slander is carried along with popular notions of “southern small town corruption”. The behavior of our police can be easily cast as typical ignorant prejudice. [biking in heels, Rantwick, city cycle]

The lawfulness of my behavior is clear to any who can read. There plenty of helpful guides on-line if one needs help. [1] People outside of Texas have a better handle on the rights of cyclists in Texas than the Ennis PD does! Oh yes, let’s keep arresting the bicyclist!

Stubborn

Who should back down, the City of Ennis or ChipSeal?

Perhaps the City of Ennis should wait to see how the new appeal trial turns out. Such a claim would save face and allow further sport at our expense to cease. It would be just like those two years prior to October 2009 when I drove around just like do now, but without the drama. (How did Ennis get along all that time without arresting me? Can the City of Ennis point to chaos and mayhem during that period when I was “unregulated”?)

Or perhaps I should voluntarily abandon exerting my right to drive on the public roadway. Suck it up and drive where it is less safe. Expose myself to greater peril for the greater good. (Reducing the work-load of our 911 operator?) Take to gravel roads and take longer trips.

I should just stay home, or take the bus. (There is no bus.) I could walk the six miles to town for groceries. If I took a wheelbarrow, I would be a vehicle and thus traffic, and able to use the roadway! [2] I would no longer write critical phone numbers on my arm before leaving the house.

No, I think not. The more the City of Ennis strives to remove my right to the public road, the more dear that right seems to me. I won’t be backing down, Ennis. Perhaps you should weigh the costs and reconsider before proceeding.

I have.



[1] The Ennis PD should make haste to update their copies of the TTC. It is shameful that Officer Watson was made to look the fool because he was provided with an outdated copy of the TTC

[2] Sec. 541.201. (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.

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.

While Minding My Own Business…

As I zip up my back-pack, I look up to see an Ellis County Sheriff’s Police cruiser pulls up to me.

I am on the shoulder of Hwy 287, and I am about to continue on my way home. It is dusk and I turn my rear light on as wait to see what this deputy wants to say to me.

“We’ve been receiving a lot of calls that you have been riding on the roadway.”

“Yes” I say; “In the middle of the lane, just like all the other vehicles.”

He says; “No, you have to ride on the shoulder.”

“Are you saying I can’t drive on the roadway?”

“I’m saying you have to drive on the shoulder.”

I tell him; “That would compromise my safety. I am going to drive home on the roadway.”

He says; “Your not listening to me, you have to ride on the shoulder, or I’m going to arrest you.”

I say, “Because that is an unlawful order, and it will compromise my safety, I am going to drive in the lane.”

With that, I check for traffic, mount my bicycle and merge onto the roadway.

Tomorrow, I will tell you what happened on that day.

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.

Slow Vehicles and Lawful Lane Position

The following is a guest blog from Bob Shanteau.


The current slow moving vehicle law is discriminatory in the following way:

ARTICLE III. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY

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)

Expert Witness

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)

Publications:

"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

"Detecting Bicycles and Motor Vehicles Using the Same Loop Detector", presented to the California Department of Transportation Electrical Systems Branch, October 16, 2007

Dr. Shanteau's Blog

Texas Maximum Speed Law Explained

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.

Part One

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. [1] 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.

Part Three

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. [2]

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. [3]

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.
　
[1] 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!




[2] Adapted from Bicycles and the basic speed law by Bob Shanteau 12/31/2007 Concepts and phrases are his and used with permission.

[3] Wayne Pein, e-mail dated November 24, 2009 Adapted with permision.

The Steps of the Dance

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. [3] 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." [1]

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. [2]

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. [4]

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.) [5]

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. [6] In fact, it could be argued that doing so removes a cyclist from many legal obligations and protections. [7] I am of the opinion that riding on the shoulder is more dangerous than operating in the roadway. [8]

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 Mighk Wilson, Keri Caffrey and Herman May 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.

Footnotes:

[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.
Sec.　541.201. (23)　　"Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.

[2] 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

[3] 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.

[4] 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.
　
[5] 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.

[6] 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

[7] 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.

[8] 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?

Gratifying

Last Saturday, while on the way into town, a came upon a Salmon cyclist traveling in the same direction I was traveling.

This fellow fit a common stereotype, which I shall describe, but I really do not know his actual circumstances. He was Hispanic, riding a cruiser style bicycle, and he was wearing street clothes. His seat was properly positioned, and his rear wheel had slight wobble.

Now I ride a high-end fancy racer style bicycle. I wear Lycra bicycle specific clothing. I was wearing a helmet. I should have been a snob and zipped by him without even a glance in his direction. (That's how it is done, isn't it?)

But then all the stereotypes fail.

I shout, but in a pleasant tone; "Hello! You should be riding over here." I point to my side of the street. I am riding about six feet from the curb.

It seems to take a moment for him to understand. I am slowing down and I am slightly ahead of him.

"Over there?" he asks.

"Yes, with traffic, it's safer."

To my surprise, he swings across the street to my side of the street, and he says "Thank you!"

Well!

I have a stop sign, and he is close behind me. I put my foot down to wait for him.

I try again to explain that it is for safety, and to follow the law. I do not know how much of that he understood, he would only say"Over here?" and thank you three or four more times.

So I continued on ahead, paying close attention to demonstrate best practices. I hope he will ride on the correct side of the road long enough to prefer it. If so, it will be better for him and our whole community.

This is the first time in my experience that an appeal to ride correctly was not received with hostility. It was quite a surprise, and gratifying as well.

It Is More Important To Me Than to Them

SteveA says this is my advantage in getting my ticket resolved in my favor. Passion.



I stopped in at the Ennis Police Station see what the procedure is for getting clarification as to the Texas Transportation Code (TTC) statute that I have been accused of violating. It is hard to tell, because there is no "impeding traffic" section in the TTC.



I spoke with a Ennis Police Department (EPD) officer who was also exemplary in his demeanor. After he explained what steps I had to take next, he indulged me with a wide ranging conversation on police work, the law, some of the forces that affect an individual officers discretion in enforcing the law, police priorities and such.



He demonstrated good professionalism by being careful not to imply advice for my particular situation, and he and I avoided talking about Officer Watson's conduct, other than my making it clear that I was impressed by his low-key non-confrontational style. (I was complimentary about Officer Watson.)



I was disheartened by some comments made by this officer. I have had very few hassles from police in all of my Texas travels on two-wheels. I had thought this was due to the clear simplicity of Texas law. Texas has codified one of the least restrictive bicycle laws in the nation. It is something all Texas cyclists should be grateful for. (It would no doubt be better with the far-to-right language removed.) Cyclists enjoy unusual liberty in Texas.



When I tried to express how police priorities place traffic flow issues above safety, and it would be in EPD's best long term interests to crack down on scofflaw cycling, he told me that the community and officers feel that enforcing bicycle law was "harassment" and lead to many formal complaints. (Every formal complaint must be investigated, documented, and adjudicated, eating up a tremendous amount of resources and man hours.)



And then, when speaking about operating a bicycle on public streets, it became clear that none of them think a bicycle should be on any public street. He insisted that bicycles, for example, must ride on the shoulder of the road, "just like slow cars are required to" to avoid impeding traffic. Sigh.



As I will show below, this is an understanding from our speed dominant car-centric culture, not something derived from the TTC. The idea of public roads accommodating none-motorized traffic is crazy-talk. When they think of road use, they are thinking in terms of private automobiles equals public use. I guess they don't remember how "traffic" is defined in the TTC: "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."



When someone is riding their bicycle on a public road, they are traffic. They are in fact "normal and reasonable" traffic.



So if his perspective is true, I would be hassled at every turn except for the the low priority placed on enforcing bicycle law! I thought it was because I work so hard at riding in a lawful manner.



The TTC has a lot to say about driving and riding on the shoulder, but it nowhere requires using it, and it most certainly discourages it's use.



First, some definitions.



"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. Sec. 541.302. (5)　　
"Improved shoulder" means a paved shoulder.　Sec. 541.302.(6)
"Laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into at least two clearly marked lanes for vehicular travel. Sec.541.302.(7)　
"Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. If a highway includes at least two separate roadways, the term applies to each roadway separately. Sec. 541.302.(11)　
"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 not intended for normal vehicular travel. Sec. 541.302.(15)　



Naturally, because politicians wrote it, it is a little confusing. Their definition for "highway" appears to include the entire right-of-way from fence-line to fence-line. The definitions for "roadway" "laned roadway" and "shoulder" clearly state that shoulders are not intended to be used as travel lanes.



Sec.　545.058.　　DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER.

　
(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.


(b)　　An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the left of the main traveled portion of a divided or limited-access or controlled-access highway if that operation may be done safely, but only:
(1)　　to slow or stop when the vehicle is disabled and traffic or other circumstances prohibit the safe movement of the vehicle to the shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of the roadway;
(2)　　as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(3)　　to avoid a collision.


(c)　　A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to:
(1)　　an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call;
(2)　　a police patrol; or
(3)　　a bicycle.　　　　



There are three portions to this law: What circumstances allow travel on the shoulder to the right, (7 of them) what circumstances allow driving on the left shoulder, (Two repeats and one new one) and the vehicles that are not bound by this law.



Now the statement made separately by two EPD officers was that "slow moving vehicles must use the shoulder" to allow faster traffic to overtake them in a more convenient way. Is that what the statute says?



It does no such thing! In fact, even beyond the obvious permissive word of "may" rather than the compulsory word of "shall", it sets up a host of conditions that, to my mind, would be unusual enough to make driving on the shoulder legally quite rare.



The twin pre-conditions of necessity and the ability to do the maneuver in a safe manner that have to be present will wipe out most scenarios for doing this that I can imagine. In fact, the necessity clause nullifies the permission to allow faster traffic to overtake you easier! After all, don't those who complain about cyclists riding centered in the lane object on the grounds that it is rude to inconvenience others? No one has ever argued with me that it is a necessity to overtake slower traffic.



So yes, Steve, it is more important to me than it is to them, for it is my liberty to use the public road in a lawful manner that is at stake.



This, as you say, is my advantage.