Traffic Stop Ruminations

Why was I pulled over?

Do you think this officer was truly concerned with my safety, or was he just enforcing the Culture of Speed?

Is he the local safety patrol or is he a speed cop?

His first gambit, perhaps as a result of his confidence that I was breaking some sort of law, was that I "can't be blocking traffic that way". It is not clear precisely what he meant.

As there was a travel lane next to me (conveniently commonly called a passing lane) I wasn't blocking anyone. Was he objecting to my chosen route? (In the travel lane and not on the shoulder?) Was he objecting to my centered-left lane position?

Regardless, I responded to what he actually said by pointing out that everyone was free to avail themselves of the other lane if they wished.


So he made up a scenario that in his imagination was my imminent peril; "Well, a bunch of cars almost swerved into you back there."

As I noted, traffic was not heavy. The Airport Freeway parallels Hwy 183 siphoning off non-local traffic. I find it hard to believe, even on reflection, that I was a significant hindrance to anyone, nor do I think there was enough traffic to create the hazard he lied about.

No one passed me while straddling the lane, for instance. This would be something I would notice because it is such a rare event. All the overtaking drivers that day did so with due care and completely within their own lane.

Even if folks did dart into my lane without seeing me, it would be their reckless actions that were putting me at risk, not my lawful presence, as his statement implies. In that moment, and even now, it is this notion that particularly irks me: To make an unsafe lane change is illegal and a citable offence; But this officer pulled me over, not them!

These are the issues that I am hinting at with my questions to him, and so he retreats to the more tenable position of "safety".

What a joke! This officer hasn't a clue as to how to operate a bicycle on a roadway. He is immersed in the Culture of Speed, he has a windshield view of the world and he has likely never given any thought as to how fast vehicles behave around slow vehicles. Excuse me if I doubt that your safety tips will be useful to me.

Society has empowered this officer to enforce laws enacted by our duly elected legislative bodies. He has been given the power to detain people suspected of criminal behavior. He is therefor abusing such powers if he is detaining the law-abiding for breaking imaginary laws or by capriciously enforcing his own personal rules. As an agent of the state he has no lawful authority to compel others to listen to his safety lectures.

So what is he? A policeman? Is he a Culture of Speed cop? Is he the local safety patrol?

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.

Deja Vu All Over Again

Sadly, another VC hit from-behind wreck happened here in Dallas, this time to a middle-aged couple on a tandem.

The collision happened within 200 feet of the crash I reported last month, but this time in broad daylight.

The Stoker on the tandem suffered a sprained ankle and a deep two inch gash that required ten stitches to close. The Captain was bruised.

Surprisingly, both are expected to fully recover in spite the fact that neither were wearing a helmet. The tandem's rear wheel will be fine when the rim and spokes are replaced.

The driver of the car may have been distracted by one or more of the five children who were her passengers. She locked up the brakes on her car before hitting the tandem.

The tandem was traveling about ten miles per hour centered in the right travel lane on a road with a forty MPH speed limit. The motorist struck the bicycle on her license plate- perfectly centered in the middle of her bumper.

Because she had no car insurance, her car was impounded.

City assets involved in this incident was one EMT ambulance with three EMT personnel, one fire engine with three firemen, six police units and six police officers.

Impede Traffic, Pull Over a Cyclist!

Graphic courtesy of Keri Caffrey

Friday March 19, 2010. Approximately 13:30 hours. Ennis PD traffic stop.

Cause: The Patrol Officer preferred the cyclist use a different route.

Result: Cyclist allowed to proceed after a consultation with headquarters.

Particulars:

The cyclist was traveling west-bound on East Ennis Avenue having just crossed Kaufman Avenue, on his way home with groceries. He was pulled over in the 200 block in heavy traffic. Because there was no place to pull off the roadway, they blocked the right travel lane for the time of the stop.

The highway has four 12 foot travel lanes. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH.

The Officer initiated the traffic stop from the left lane. When he “whooped” his siren, the cyclist did a head check to see the patrol car in the left lane trailing the cyclist by less than a car length. There was another car, directly behind the cyclist, trapped by the patrol car. The cyclist signaled a right turn and pulled to a stop at the curb.

The officer approached the cyclist and greeted him by name. The cyclist was unfamiliar with this officer.

The officer asked the cyclist if he understood that he was not allowed to drive on the left side of the right travel lane.

“Not on this lane.” Said the cyclist.

“Why not?” Asked the Officer.

“It is less than 14 feet wide.” Replied the cyclist while producing his 12 foot tape measure.

The lane turned out to be 11 ½ feet wide.

The Officer excused himself to consult someone who had access to the law books.

The cyclist busied himself with taking photographs.

Shortly, the Officer again approached the cyclist and apologized for stopping him.
The cyclist accepted his apology, and continued his trip home.


Self-portrait in Officer McCurdy's glasses

My Formal Reply To Larry

What are you hoping to accomplish with this "rank political activism"? Is pissing off the drivers your goal?

No, my goal is to travel about on the public road. I am often going someplace. But why I am on the public road is immaterial, isn’t it? The only purpose that is required in order to use the public road that one is using it for travel. (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.)

I don't know about you but making mad the people operating things that could easily kill me seems pretty foolish.

I am not responsible for the emotional state of other people. I am acting lawfully. If that upsets other travelers on the public road, rest assured I am on a very long list of other things that are making that person angry. It is not especially hard to overtake a bicycle on any road, let alone this one. It is not a maneuver that requires the lightning fast reflexes and the focused skill of a Formula 1 race car driver! Encounters with motorists on this road last less than a minute. It takes an expansive ego to assume that it will ruin the rest of the day for someone! If having to overtake me on Hwy 287 is the worst thing to happen to someone during their day, they have it rather good, don’t you think?

What is worse is they will be more likely to [not] be courteous to OTHER bikers they see. Thanks a lot!!

The vast majority of drivers I encounter on the public road are courteous and display due care around bicycles. Surrendering to bullies is not likely going to have an outcome you will like.How about adjusting your attitude and approach. I find that being courteous to drivers (and cops for that matter) gets the drivers more courteous to me on a bike.

I am the very picture of courtesy to those around me! I drive where they are most apt to notice me from a distance, thus allowing them plenty of time to negotiate a merge into the passing lane. (A maneuver that is so common, it is rarely even recalled at the end of a trip.) It is only the motorists that are not paying attention to the task at hand that end up having to slow because they don’t notice me in a timely manner. Is it courteous to other drivers to neglect your primary duty when operating on the public road?

Those who are paying attention never even have to let up on the gas. Projecting the hardships experienced by incompetent motorists onto me is a neat trick. My conscience is clear.

I violate no one’s right-of-way, nor does anyone violate mine. How am I discourteous?

I wave, smile, and try to not impede them as much as I want them to not impede me.

I am not impeding anyone who is driving competently. In order to do that, I would have to drive my bicycle simultaneously in two lanes. Do drivers have the right to drive at top speed at all times? Please take a moment to review “Texas Maximum Speed Law Explained”, it should clear up this misapprehension of yours.

THAT makes the world a better place for bicyclists, not your childish antics.

Capitulation and abandoning my express statutory right to operate on the roadway? (Travel lane) That would make it better for cycling how? I find it hard to call a roadway “public” when the only vehicles that are allowed on it are those that are first required to obtain a license from the state!

You seem to think I am doing some sort of stunt. I am not. I am lawfully traveling between Waxahachie and Ennis on a public road that is not a limited access highway, nor does it have a minimum speed limit.

I am not only doing it lawfully, I am doing it in the safest manner possible. I am sure that I have made the round trip on that highway twenty times. At my reasonable speed for a cyclist, that would be about an hour of exposure in the sixteen miles I travel on it round trip. So with twenty hours of exposure, across 320 miles, how many times do you think I have been hit? How many motorists crashed into each other within a mile of me?

Anonymous, you have no clue how high speed traffic behaves around slow moving vehicles. To think it is hazardous can only be the result of hysteria. If this is a stunt, or childish antics, it is as dangerous or controversial as taking a bath.

In the series of photographs below, they are taken from the side of HWY 287, near where I was arrested twice. This was taken on a Friday morning, a week ago.

Besides an official traffic control device warning of a pedestrian crossing ahead on a road with a 65 PSL, this series documents the heavy congestion in both directions one can find on this roadway.



second in series

third in series

fourth in series

Something I'm Wondering About

If cycling two abreast is rude behavior and a crime against humanity, why are we then expected to travel two abreast with an automobile?

That is, if it is bad behavior and wrong to cycle side-by-side with another cyclist within a travel lane, why is it then expected that we should ride side-by-side with all motorists within the lane? Who is being rude in that circumstance?

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.

Honk Report From Ennis

Four honks in twenty miles! And that is only counting the geese wanting to overtake, not the honks from annoyed motorists in opposing lanes.

On the route I needed to traverse today, I could have predicted two of them, because Texans think a cyclist ought not be in the travel lane if there is an improved shoulder. But the other two were extremely rare.

In chronological order:

First Goose; This fella had the bad luck to come up to me at place where he could not pass me safely in the 55 MPH signed speed limit road, shown here.



He stayed behind me and honked as if I were the one without the right of way. I guess he failed to remember the rule when he first got his driver's license that the faster traffic has a duty to overtake slower traffic in a safe manner in with due care. Perhaps he needs a refresher course!

Rather than passing me on the blind hill like many of his neighbors do, he waited until we got over the rise to pass me. He came up beside me on my left in the other lane, and slowed to set me straight about how to ride a bicycle. He had to occupy the opposing lane to do this because I was maintaining my position in the left tire track. If anyone cares, he was driving a recent model heavy duty red pick-up truck. Oh, and I spat in his direction as he began to overtake me. SOP. [1]



Middle aged red pickup driver: "You need to stay out of the road, someone’s going to run you over!" These words were not said in a angry tone, just a raised voice to be heard over the truck’s noise.

Middle aged bicycle rider: "So you admit that you are such an incompetent driver that you would run into a bicycle in the middle of your lane?" Yes, I really did ask him that.

Middle aged red pickup driver, after a pause; "It’s really dangerous to ride like that!"

I then studiously ignored him until he continued on his way.

I very rarely get honked at (Or even shot, for that matter!) on these two lane roads. That alone was unusual. But this fella, after being annoyed that I was causing him a trivial delay, adds 40 seconds or so to his delay by pacing me!

Silly goose!

Second goose;

On north Kaufman, traveling north, just after it is reduced from a four lane to a two lane, this goose honked multiple times. Then he passed me on the improved shoulder at this spot:



As he passed, I spat in his direction, SOP. As he re-entered the roadway, realizing that he had been insulted he slammed on his brakes, coming to a complete stop, and marking the road like this:



I avoided him and came to a stop beside him. This is the hardest position for a motorist to strike you with his car.

Rolling down the passenger window he communicated to me.

Angry automobile driver; "You can't ride in the middle of the road, you are in the way of cars!"

Calm and witty cyclist; [2] "You have a duty to pass slower traffic in a safe manner and with due care."

Angry automobile driver; "Your not supposed to be in the way of traffic!"

Calm and witty cyclist; "One of us here has operated in a legal manner, and the other one has not."

Angry automobile driver; "I haven't done anything wrong! Your the one breaking the law!

Calm and witty cyclist, as traffic begins to work their way around us on the shoulder; "You don't call a panic stop in the middle of the lane reckless driving?" I suppose it should be noted that his right front fender was crumpled as was his left rear fender. I suppose he could've used working anti-lock brakes. Just say'n.

This comment seems to get him worked up. The angry automobile driver then said, roughly translated; "I have a good mind to hurt you in a bad way and make sure you stay at the side of the road!"

The calm and witty cyclist said; "Four seventy-five ex eitch are."

Confused automobile driver; "What?"

Calm and witty cyclist; " Your license plate number, four seventy-five ex aitch are."

As he speeds off, I re-enter the traveled portion of the roadway and continue on my way.

After being so upset by my having delaying his trip that he broke the law by passing me on the shoulder, [3] he recklessly stops in the lane to spend over a minute "speaking" to me.

Silly goose.

Third goose; Now traveling south on north Kaufman, I ride into a construction zone where Kaufman's four lanes have been reduced to two. Another motorist honks like in a futile attempt to improve the situation. As the road expands to normal lanes I do not spit, being unsure of which driver following me had poor impulse control. I pull up to a stop behind them at the next light.

Silly goose!

Fourth goose; As I nearly complete the final part of my ride, on the 55 MPH signed speed limit two lane that connects to my driveway, while safely overtaking me in the oncoming lane, the elderly man honks as he goes by. Did he know about my SOP?

Silly goose!

It is uncommon that anyone ever honks at me on a two lane without a shoulder. Both honking and passing on the right are expected on a two lane with a shoulder. Four same direction honks and two opposite direction honks in twenty miles is considerably odd.

Two of them were sufficiently outraged by my lawful behavior to interrupt their trip to publicly chastise me. They were not satisfied with simply being ignorant of the traffic laws. In their certitude, they were determined to make sure everyone was aware of their ignorance!

[1] SOP: Standard Operating Procedure

[2] Hey it's my story, and I can tell it any way I like.

[3] He illegally passed on the right: Sec. 545.053.(a) An operator passing another vehicle shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance.
He illegally traveled on the shoulder:
Sec. 545.057.(b) An operator may not pass to the right by leaving the main traveled portion of a roadway except as provided by Section 545.058.
Sec. 545.058.(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:
(1)　　to stop, stand, or park;
(2)　　to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;
(3)　　to decelerate before making a right turn;
(4)　　to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;
(5)　　to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(6)　　as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(7)　　to avoid a collision.

He operated his vehicle in a reckless manner without due care: Sec. 545.401.(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful [sic] or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Curiously, this is the statute he accused me of violating. To whom does it most accurately apply to? Sec. 545.363. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

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.

Nice Meeting You, Officer Watson

That is, if you are officer Watson. More about that later.

It was about 7:30 in the morning, Thursday, and I was traveling west on West Ennis Avenue after negotiating the angled parking area. Because of the dense traffic, I had to wait for a few automobiles to overtake me on the right before I could merge into the right lane. I was then the first person waiting at the light at Gaines Street.

I didn't notice that the car that pulled up next to me was a Ennis City patrol car.

The light turns green and I proceed through the intersection, and I then notice the patrol car because he has accelerated ahead of me. But he is obeying the speed limit, and that causes a larger than usual platoon of cars to form behind us. As we approach Clay Street the patrol car must come to a stop to yield to a vehicle waiting to turn left, and I zoom by him in the right lane. (This fact will be important.)

As West Ennis Avenue continues beyond Clay Street, the road's geometry abruptly changes. Both west-bound lanes make a ten foot jog to the right (In the intersection itself!) to make room for a suicide left turn lane that is created/terminated there. There is also the appearance of a varying width improved shoulder of between four and six feet that extends all the way to Waxahachi. The lane itself is about ten feet wide by my trained observation, but I will update this post with an actual measurement later.

I get about half way down that block before the first automobile overtakes me, and curiously, he honks. (Silly goose!) Then I hear the BLAAK of the police saxon, I do a head check and see flashing red lights behind me. Note to Steve: I moved to the right tire track, checked to see if the officer was on the shoulder, and then pulled onto the shoulder in front of him. I wanted to be sure he was pulling me over, not abusing his authority to get me out of the way.

As the Officer gets out of his patrol car, I put on my blogger journalist cap. I greet the officer with a question; "What time is it?"

He answers conversationally, checking his watch. I would like to note that this officers demeanor and tone was pleasant and un-confrontational through-out. He acted in every way professionally.

He asked me where I was going, and I foolishly answer, because I was so intent on reading his name tag for this post. I say foolish, because my purpose for traveling on that public road was none of his concern. Oh, there it is, above his right pocket, Officer Watson!

He says to me that I am impeding traffic. That back there (He must mean on the other side of Clay Street- he was pointing.) it is a 30 MPH zone and it changes up ahead there to a 45 MPH zone. I am not allowed to impede traffic at the slow speeds I am going.




I tell him it is doubtful that I would be able match the speed of the other traffic. But I am going to travel down the street in the travel lane. He is welcome to give me a ticket for any law he thinks I am breaking.

He says well, OK then. Can I see your drivers license? Any ID? (By Texas law, I am required to give any law enforcement officer my name and current address. I am not required to carry ID. An officer can, if he suspects that I am lying to him, detain me until my identity can be established.) He accepts my health insurance card and debit card, both without photos, as evidence enough, and goes to his patrol car to write the ticket.

I then remember my camera is in my bag, and so I haul it out to document the stop. Smile Officer Watson!




So he comes back and asks me to sign the ticket, and I ask what I am signing.

He says, for impeding traffic. I didn't impede traffic, I protest in a conversational tone.

"No, no", he says, "you are just promising to appear on that date." So I ask him what law I violated, and he blinks in surprise. (He thought he had just told me!) So I asked him what part of the law, could he cite it to me?

I figured he would have to cite the section of the transportation code he was accusing me of breaking in the process of writing the ticket, but apparently not. I am sure he is thinking of sec. 545.363 which applies to motor vehicles, not bicycles. But he missed that opportunity to avoid embarrassment. I tried Officer Watson. I am sure that there are many places in the Texas Transportation Code (TTC) that you know better than I do, but I am confident I know my way around the bicycle parts, and you clearly don't.

So we part ways without rancor, and I resume riding centered in the lane.

So I get home and examine the ticket.



I am again surprised that there is no section of the transportation code cited. Do officers just make up the laws they "enforce" as they go along? In this officer's defense, I think he is sincere in his understanding of the law, just sincerely wrong. He will be educated about it soon, it just would have been less expensive for him if he had a little more humility.

Under the heading "VIOLATIONS" it says "CITATION VIO 1: Impeding Traffic" That is all that it says.

Then I discover another surprise. It says "Issued by SGT PILLOW, Badge#620" Huh? Who is that? Does Sgt. Pillow put someone else's name tag on his uniform? I will have to investigate this.

Then, another surprise! The citation is for impeding traffic in the 300 block of West Ennis Avenue! Hah! How could I have been impeding traffic there, when traffic was passing me on the right?

Alright, some observations. This is an example of traffic flow maximization rather than safety promotion. When I see people on bicycles in town, they are invariably scofflaws. The ones who I see riding lawfully seem to me to just be riding that way by chance- should I observe them five minutes later they would be back to their scofflaw ways. Salmon, sidewalk, parking lot ninja and night ninja behavior is the order of the day. These are the practices that are far more hazardous than a cyclist following traffic rules. Yet that lawlessness not an issue for the Ennis police department. Safety is not a priority, smooth traffic flow is.

From the one hundred block of West Ennis Avenue to the end of the three hundred block, it is a very wide single lane road that automobiles routinely share side by side, making it a de-facto two lane road each way. This is to accommodate angled parking.

The rest of West Ennis Avenue is is made up of two narrow lanes in each direction, with the addition of a suicide center left turn lane from the five hundred block to the three thousand block. The question is, can a slow moving vehicle on a multi-lane road impede traffic? Further, the automobile that caused the patrol car to come to a complete stop when it was waiting for a gap in opposing traffic to turn left onto Clay Street, was it impeding traffic?

Yes, they were impeding traffic! In fact, we are "impeded" all the time! We are impeded by school buses loading and unloading children, trains, signal lights, folks preparing to parallel park... you get the drift. We are impeded all the time when we travel about on the public roads. The real question then is, are all those impediments to traffic illegal? Why not? What is illegal impediment of traffic?

TTC Section 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."

"Normal and reasonable movement of traffic." Each word drips with meaning. What is traffic anyway? The TTC defines traffic as: "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."

If the traffic this morning was a horse drawn carriage, and not a bicycle, would it be an illegal impedance? Obviously, to say that a vehicle traveling at a speed that is reasonable for that vehicle, but will cause other faster traffic to slow down is an illegal impedence would ban them from operating on public roads. This then would be the effect if the views of Officer Watson/Sgt. Pillow were the proper reflection of the law.

Furthermore, because I was traveling in the right lane, faster traffic was not impeded at all by me, because they had a dedicated passing lane next to the one I was using! Here is the reason I think the TTC is clear on this specific point. The whole of the statute regulating lane position and impeding other traffic is this:

"Sec. 551.101.　　RIGHTS AND DUTIES.　 (a)　　A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless:
(1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty; or a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.

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.
(c)　　Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles."

So, 551.101 means that a cyclist is "by his nature" unable to keep up with a motor vehicle, so he has no duty to obey the slow vehicle statute when he is traveling at a speed that is reasonable for cyclist.

And in Sec. 551.103 (c) that says two cyclists riding two abreast can be in violation of impeding traffic, but only if a travel lane is wide enough to safely share side-by-side with motorists and a single cyclist. If it is too narrow for a single cyclist to share, then riding two abreast is just as much an impedance as a single cyclist.

So as it stands now, I am charged with impeding traffic. Perhaps they will change it to improper lane position, seeing how there was that lovely shoulder over there I was ignoring.

I must give credit to some folks whose clear thinking and discussions have shaped this blog entry. My thanks to Mighk Wilson, Herman May, Keri Caffrey, AndrewP and fred_dot_u.

***An update! I found Sgt Pillow! I always write the blog and add the photos later. As I was cropping and manipulating my pictures in Picasa 3, I can see there is a person I did not notice during the traffic stop sitting in the passenger seat of the patrol car! Gee whiz!

I think my camera has distorted the features of Officer Watson. He seemed much leaner to me at the time of the stop. My apologies to him for any such distortion of his features.

If the Roadway Were Designed Like a Bike Lane

Once upon a time, the Merchants of Ennis complained
that their revenue would not be sustained.
The speeding cars wouldn't come to a stop.
This was causing city commerce to flop.

"Our hamlet is small, but it would mean better pay,
if only more folks would stop and stay.
To swing to the right and parallel park,
it is hard for our customers, even when it's not dark.

"I agree"; said then Mayor, "Parallel parking's a curse."
As he watched merchants money placed in his purse.
"Angled parking is needed to bring customers down,
and bring prosperity back to our town!"

So he called together city staff and his team,
and told them about his prosperity scheme.
Our future is bright,
(My re-election is in sight!)
and this was certainly the key.
He wanted the Engineers of Ennis to "make it be".


The Engineers of Ennis set out to fulfill the wishes of the city staff;
To not do so could cut a career in half.
(If you are a traffic engineer,
this point is very clear:
Take a principled stand-
in a basement you will land.
It sounds awfully callous,
but that's how it is done in Dallas.)


Armed with tape measures and fluorescent paint,
using historical methods now thought of as quaint,
the Ernest Engineers sought out a plan to produce
parking at angles and high sales juice.
They measured the height of the curbs and the width of the street.
They wished West Ennis Avenue had a just few more feet.


"Oh, dear!", exclaimed the Engineers, "Angled parking won't work in this town,
the Customers will be in peril when they back out with traffic around.
Keeping parallel parking is what will keep their cars sound."


"We are doomed!" Shouted the Merchants of Ennis; "Our future is bleak!
Without parking lanes, the customer will stay in his home all week,
for he is afraid to parallel park on the busy West Ennis street!"

"We need more autos at angles!
It must be finagled.
When our customers don't stop
for a bite or a pop,
our books won't balance and they end up in tangles!"


So the City Fathers told the Ernest Engineers,
to make a new plan to avoid any tears.


"I know!' said one of the Ernest Engineers, who thought European ways were neat,
"We can make the portion of West Ennis Avenue that needs angled parking a two lane street."


With new inspiration held firmly in mind,
they set out to make the street a European kind.
The Engineers worked through the day and late into the night.
Alas, they still had no plan when the dawn was in sight.


"It can't be done!" Moaned one. And so it seemed.
Each plan in its turn got creamed.
For every time they moved a line, say from A to B,
another problem would pop up, over at C.


"Over to the east where the railroad tracks sit,
it is too close to downtown, I am at the end of my wit!
Try as I might I can't make it fit."

"There are rules and standards and such.
I have been trained to know that much!
They need us to start many blocks to the east
should we want to comply with State Law, at the least.
But it will cause traffic jams beyond all reason,
even when it is not high shopping season!"


"In Europe, you know", said the first; "they have more reasonable notions when it comes to parking and traffic and such. Let's just erase the right lane and let the drivers do what they want. That's how it works for the Dutch."


"We like it." Said the City Fathers. "For now we can have more autos at angles, which is a good thing.
Our Merchants of Ennis will be so happy they will sing!
(And into our campaign coffers their coin will ring!)"


The Mayor of Ennis pulled aside the chief of police the next day.
"I have a request of you, if I may?
Should a Coveted Customer the law not obey,
would you do us a favor and look away?
It is needed for prosperity, what do you say?"

"The signs will say 'merge left'," said the city DA,
"but we will be silent if drivers of autos do not obey.
Should some poor sap get his car in a wreck,
it will be his fault, his neck.
We shall say "We warned you my dear!"
and so we will always be in the clear."

And so it came to be that both parking at angles and contempt for the law came to downtown Ennis Texas.


The above tale is how I imagine the horrible traffic engineering came about in Ennis Texas. I look at its present configuration, and this is how I assume it had to come about. I have no idea as to the various people who were actually the animating forces, nor their role in it. I doubt I could find out, would you want to be associated with this?

Very few operators of vehicles are able to navigate through westbound West Ennis Avenue without making multiple violations of state traffic laws, but I have never seen them enforced. I am sure that any case brought against a traveler through there would result in a return to parallel parking, for without local knowledge of the situation, breaking the law cannot be avoided if you approach the area in the right lane.

First, between I-45 about a mile to the east, and Waxahachi, ten miles to the west, this street is a four lane boulevard, sometimes with a fifth suicide left turn only center lane. It is choked down to a two lane for these four blocks in all that way. This was done to shoe-horn angled parking into this section. Blatant lawlessness is tolerated to avoid inevitable traffic snarls if both angled parking and obedience to traffic laws were to exist at the same time.


I have blogged about an encounter I had going east through here, and I posted pictures as well. I often changed lanes across a solid white line within a few feet of railroad tracks, and I know now that I shouldn't do so. It is strongly discouraged in Texas to change lanes within 200 feet of a railroad crossing, an intersection or within an intersection. Which is why the newly formed lane begins with a solid white line. Shown here going east:

But it is really fouled up beyond all recognition in the westbound lanes. There is a short series of signaled intersections, an at grade railroad crossing and poor sight-lines caused by the terrain that make the situation unworkable- not that that made any difference!

The sign telling vehicle operators to merge left is beyond the point that they can lawfully do so. The instruction comes after one has already entered the 200 foot railroad zone. Further, the operator cannot see the single lane ahead because of the railroad tracks.





Once you cross the railroad tracks and it is clear your lane ends, you are forced to either merge across a solid wide line, merge in the intersection, or merge after you have entered the angled parking zone.





As you can see. most motorists continue on as if there were two travel lanes available. However, if a vehicle who is parked in a marked parking space edges out and hits you, it is the fault of the person in the "right lane", not the parked operator, because it is often impossible to observe folks driving on the right, as you can also see.

How could a traffic engineer sign off on such monstrosity in good conscience? It is inevitable that injury and property damage will be the result of this attractive nuisance. It seems to me that we could have any two of the three competing interests, at the detriment to the third.

Angled parking and lawful engineering and enforcement, to the detriment of high traffic flow.

Angled parking and high traffic flow at the expense of holding lawful behavior in contempt.

High traffic flow and compliance with the law, without angled parking.

Obviously, this is no big deal for the locals around here. But how is one to lawfully and safely traverse this section of the public road on a bicycle?

If the "wink wink" two lane section is supposed to really be an extra wide lane, where does the cyclist ride in light of our far-to-right laws? In the formerly right lane where parked vehicles can pull out on him? In the "left" lane, the escape route of vehicles passing him on the right?

This section of West Ennis Avenue is what all streets would look like if they were built like most bike lanes are.

Before Being Overtaken By Events...

This is the blog post that was forming in my head before all the excitement the other night. I was going to say-

Something very unusual happened on my ride today. It was really no big deal, but for the rarity of it.

I had a string of cars pile up behind me, waiting to pass! Yes, really!

Some say that as a courtesy and as a gesture of goodwill, cyclists ought to move aside from a primary lane position to facilitate faster traffic getting by them. If it is safe to do so, they often add. But how many automobiles in queue does it take to evoke the "courtesy doctrine"? There is some dispute over this.

Many cite Pennsylvania and California statutes that mandate operators of slow vehicles yield when five or more drivers of faster vehicles pile up behind them. I guess those laws are saying that one's Right-Of-Way (ROW) is equal to 20% of everyone else's Right-To-Proceed-At-Or-Above-The-Posted-Speed-Limit. (RTPAOATPSL) When enough driver's RTPAOATPSL of .2, taken together, exceeds your ROW of 1, your ROW disappears and you are now violating the ROW of overtaking motorists!

Why five? Is three slowed vehicles too burdensome because it would force too frequent pull-offs? Is five delayed drivers suffer-able while six delayed drivers is a tragedy? I think such laws are preposterous. They are the result of political compromises and then the one size fits all mandate is forced onto the public.

In places that such laws exist, it is no longer a matter of courtesy, but a matter rights under the law. It is not a courtesy to pull aside, but an obligation. Such is the effect of laws. Law, being such a blunt force, is a poor guide when seeking enlightenment on matters of courtesy, don't you think.

Perhaps a better guide as to when pulling aside is a courteous thing to do is the amount of time a vehicle must wait behind you.

I suppose, if it were a hill crest ahead causing the motorist to be unable to pass you in a safe manner, there would be no need to pull aside, as our progress to passing lanes can be clearly seen and accessed. The trauma for the motorist by such a delay would be milder than if heavy opposing traffic were keeping them from passing you.

But if opposing traffic were steady enough that it were unlikely that a motorist's RTPAOATPSL could be resumed within 30 seconds, pulling aside might be in order. Keep in mind that this arbitrary span of time is less than most signal light cycles, which is a common, acceptable, and expected delay performed at a complete stand-still!

I do not think I have ever caused any vehicle a 20 second delay, let alone a half minute. The actual necessity to pull aside may come up from time to time for a cyclist who exercises lane control, but it is a rare and unusual situation.

In April of this year, there was some discussion of being "cautious" even though the law is clear that I am not compelled to do so. The imaginary example of impeding traffic for endless miles was usually trotted forward. So I began to take a more careful observation of just how many automobile drivers queue up behind me.

From then until the other eventful day, the highest number was two. The unusually long string of cars that momentous day was three! [Gasp!] The huge traffic pile up managed to dissipate in about 20 seconds.

In my experience, cycling on narrow roads impedes other road users, but less than the impedances caused by non-bicycle traffic. The worries people have of interfering with traffic flow when cyclists take their rightful place on the public by-ways is unfounded.

An Amusing Interchange

Alternate title: ChipSeal Has Too Much Time On His Hands!

The newsOK has a rather poor story highlighting a number of attacks on cyclists by bully-motorists. Naturally, the comments to the story is where the fireworks are! Once again, I couldn't help myself, and now I am subjecting both of my beloved readers to my illness. You may be excused if you wish.

My comments will be in blue and the commenter's will be in red.

GRANT said: Hmmm. 180 pound man on a 25 pound bike vs. a 180 pound man in a 3000 pound car. I wonder who wins that one? Sorry bikers. I don't condone the acts of borderline violence, but I also think you guys need to get off the road... especially when you ride as large, slow-moving packs that back up traffic. [Hmmm. We need to get off the road because when we are the majority of road users at a particular location, we define what “normal traffic” is, not motorists, like you are used to. Color me un-persuaded.]

I'm all about your right to ride and exercise and save gas and all, [Pay no attention to my previous comment where I opine that you ought to get off the road!]but I'm more afraid that I'm gonna kill one of you. I about nailed a guy riding on Broadway extension, going about 20 MPH, during rush hour! [So you are admitting that you are a poor driver, one who is likely to hit other vehicles in the road in front of you?]He was single-handedly making three lanes of traffic very dangerous, all because he wanted to be defiant and prove that he had a right to the road. Come on! [Who was making the conditions dangerous? Are you able to read minds? How do you know what motivated this cyclist to travel on the PUBLIC road?]

Give me a safe, bike only route that connects major hubs of the cities (using railroad or utility right of ways or roads with wide shoulders), and I'll join you. I'd love to ride SAFELY. [So would we. Perhaps it is folks with attitudes like yours that are making it dangerous.]I just can't believe that we keep talking about spending $8-10 million or more on light rail service (that will never be utilized fully and always lose money), and yet we don't think about spending a fraction of that on a bike route that connects Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, Tinker AFB, and Downtown. [We already have plenty of bike route connections between those cities; They are called PUBLIC roads, thank you very much!]

KRISTI said: This issue has been so irritating this summer. Bicycles should NOT be allowed on the road. [Bicycles are allowed by law. Call your state representative.] If you can't ride 3-wheelers, 4-wheelers, dune buggies, or golf carts on the road, why is it legal for a bicycle that can't even get up to a decent speed? [Because our right to travel by our own power ought not be limited just because automobiles have become more powerful. Our right-of-way is to be accommodated as would any other slow moving vehicle.] Not only are they dangerous for everyone involved, they also hold up traffic which makes tempers rise even more. Its just ridiculous. [It actually seems that it is the unwillingness of motorists to respect the right-of-way of bicyclists that is producing the dangerous conditions. Are cyclists throwing trash and objects at automobiles?

Cyclists ARE traffic according to state law. It is not cyclists that are producing rush hour gridlock. Automobiles, buses, and traffic lights are holding up a lot of traffic, bicyclists- well, not so much.]

If you absolutely must ride your bike, ride it in a park or on the sidewalk where it belongs and where the only person you can hurt is yourself. [Because everyone knows that bicycles are toys, and motor-cars are serious grown up toys. Kristy, what part of “public“, in public road, don‘t you understand?]

I live on a section line road and its very hilly. There are no sidewalks. The speed limit is 50 but unfortunately everyone drives faster on it, whether they should or not. [Damn those scofflaw motorists!] But if someone flies over the top of one of those hills and a bicycle is there, guess what? Someone's going to get hurt or possibly killed because the cyclists didn't have enough common sense to stay off the road. [Yep, it is those darn cyclists! It has nothing to do with the operators of the automobiles driving too fast for the conditions, failing to exercise due care, recklessly driving in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Naw, that ain’t it!]

I wish I knew what genius decided that not only are bicycles street legal but that they should have the right-of-way. [It would seem your idea is to have faster traffic have the right-of-way, and all the slower vehicles must yield to overtaking traffic. I bet I could drive a motor-car faster than you Kristy. Will you stay out of my way?] Earlywine Park in OKC has a nice walking track, and its marked so you know how far you've gone. Ride your bicycles there where your [sic] safe.

CHRISTOPHER said: Why would you ride your bike on a road without a wide enough shoulder? [Because it is not as safe, for many reasons. We have a right to the road, so it is really none of your business.] Be considerate to others and maybe you will not get attacked. [We are considerate, we are lawfully operating our vehicles on the public road. Are you justifying violence?]

I support people getting out and about but there is a line. Some people have to be places and you are upholding their progress. [Why is your trip on the public road of more importance than mine?] I often am the one found cussing behind a cyclist just because they want to enjoy the scenery. [How considerate of you.]

My job requires me to be somewhere quickly. Just to top a hill and see someone doing 10mph that I can not pass without putting them in danger puts me in a pickle. [If your job were so important that slower traffic needs to get out of your way, we would have equipped you with red lights and a siren. Since you are apparently not THAT important, may I suggest you manage your time better, leave earlier or use a different route.]

Recently in Edmond a cyclist almost got creamed by me. [You are a poor driver too?] Not on purpose. [You wish you could be a good driver but you just can’t seem to manage it?] Just the fact he was riding ignorantly. [Really? Do explain!] He was in the right lane in heavy traffic. [What lane should he have been in, if he were not’t so cussedly ignorant?] He was also in the middle of the lane. [So were you!] He also had a sidewalk he could of used. [Yes he could’ve, but THAT would have been an ignorant move! Dangerous too, about eight times more dangerous than riding where he did ride. It was probably illegal as well. I am not so sure it was the cyclist that was the ignorant one in that encounter. Isn’t the freedom of speech great! It makes it so much easier to spot the idiots among us!]

Point blank cyclist [sic] be considerate of others. Pick your path wisely for your safety. [Point blank Christopher, learn the rules of the road. Motorists have a duty to drive their automobiles with due care and in a safe manner. See to it that you are mindful of that.]

Grant I love your idea. That is truly actually an awesome one. One that would probably prove useful. That is also why they probably will never use it. LOL

TERRY said: Just the other morning I am driving down old 77 and two bikers [sic] are driving on the shoulder causing me to move to the left some. Unfortunately there were 3 cars driving the opposite direction. [Goodness! What ever could you do! I hope you applied your brakes and waited for a gap in traffic so that you were able to perform your primary duty of using due care.] Fortunately I did not run anybody off the road.

I have no problem with bikers [sic], I have problems when they use the road when there are sidewalks that can be used. [Why do you drive your automobile on the road, and avoid driving it on the sidewalk? The answer that that just popped into your mind is a reason why cyclists do not travel on the sidewalk.] These bikers [sic] need to use some common sense when they are riding.

People can exercise free speech but violence in any way is not right.

TIM said: Are you people serious? Terry, riding on sidewalks is ILLEGAL in Oklahoma City, Edmond, Norman and many other cities. Riding on the road is LEGAL. Taking the lane when needed is LEGAL. It has nothing to do with defiance, it has everything to do with using a bicycle as a legal, non-polluting healthy means of transportation.

Christopher, the cyclist you described was not riding ignorantly by taking the lane, he/she was riding safely. Why don't you folks try slowing down, paying attention and treat ALL road users with respect.

KRISTY comments again: Tim, are you serious? Or are you just trying to rile everyone up? [Tim is serious. You however, are about to display near criminal hubris.]

Surely you can see how dangerous it makes the roads when a bicycle is on it? [What makes you think it is the cyclists that are creating dangerous conditions?] Cyclists are lucky that people do pay attention or there would be a whole lot more deadly accidents. [So it is not cyclists causing the problems, it is the inattentive operators of automobiles! I see that you agree with Tim. So it must be you that is trying to “rile everyone up“!]

To be fair, it isn't only bicycles, but walkers and runners as well, although they usually do get over. [Is that on the hilly section line road that you said everyone is speeding on? It sounds to me that the reckless scofflaw motorists are the lucky ones! Lucky they are not in prison for manslaughter.]

Perhaps we should all start a petition to get the laws changed so that cyclists are allowed to ride on the sidewalks where it is safer, and not allowed on the roads. It makes so much more sense and everyone wins. [Ah, yes. I want to take away cyclist’s rights because they occasionally inconvenience me and force me to be a more careful driver. Just say it Kristy; “It’s all about me! I should always be able to drive at top speed!”]

TIM responds: Kristi, statistically it has been proven that due to obstacles, curb-cuts and intersections is is exponentially more dangerous to ride on a sidewalk than on a road. That is why it is illegal.

Now for a history lesson; were it not for the efforts of the League of American Wheelmen (now known as the League of American Bicyclists) you would not HAVE paved roads to drive on. [A wee bit over the top, Tim, but your heart’s in the right place. It is a bit unreasonable to imagine that not one motorist in 150 years would come up with the idea of paved roads. But from what I’ve read here, I am fairly sure the imaginative motorist would not be from Oklahoma!]

Bottom line, we have the right to be there, are subject to the same rules and bear the same responsibilities.

STACY chimes in with: No wonder there are tensions[.]

I don't like cyclists myself, they don't pay attention to the laws while riding, they exepect [sic] you to let them run an intersection[.] if [sic] you don't they get mad, [sic]

they [sic] have little side mirrors on their helmets, which is a waste [sic] because if they used them [sic] they could see the 10 cars stacked of [sic] behind them on [sic] get the #$@# over instead of insisting [sic] riding 2 and 3 wide on the roadway. [You have made a very confusing series of statements. On one hand, you are upset at the cyclists who break the laws. And then, astonishingly in the next breath, you are upset at cyclists who are obeying the law!]

Tim then says: And we don't like you either. So there.

While being snarky can be fun, I am trying to make a point. These folks are a very small minority of drivers. They have self-selected themselves and so cannot in any stretch of the imagination be considered a representative sample of any diverse population.

But they also do not hold their opinions in a social vacuum, either. Outside of those who acted out and physically attacked cyclists, these folks are the extreme edge of those who are hostile to cyclists. However, their positions reflect at least some of the community attitudes about traffic, the responsibility of motorists, civility on the highways, notions of right-of-way and impeding traffic.

I hope that some of my snarky comments really do point to a place that once was; Where lawfulness and civil behavior on the public way was expected of one another and common, and where I long for America to return to.

A difficulty that we face is that operating a motor vehicle today has become such an everyday common event that we have become callous to the terrible consequences of mishaps, and we have become cavalier about driving on the public way.

We have become a people who like to style ourselves as victims. We cannot countenance the idea that we may have some personal responsibility for the circumstances we find ourselves in.

We expect to be treated with grace and kindness, but feel no duty to extend such gifts to others. We are quick to take offense, but judge our own actions with gentler standards. We expect to receive the benefit of the doubt, but assume the worst motivations of others.

Hard times are upon us, perhaps it will be a catalyst for good. Bicycle advocates should watch for opportunities to shape the public's notions of what it means to be a good citizen in public spaces.