Originally Posted by
sanitycheck
All right, I've read the proposed law -- quoted by Gene a few posts back -- and I'm failing to see the new restrictions on cyclists. It does refer to existing restrictions in 551.103 and 551.104, but can you tell us more specifically what new restrictions you see it as adding?
Sec (i) will will cause cyclists to have to defend their movements if they leave a bike lane and get hit, and will give license to motorists to buzz anyone not in a bike lane if one is near.
Originally Posted by
sanitycheck
The bill does have several features that I like, including explicit rules against dooring and right hooks...acts which are probably illegal under existing Texas law, but which are laid out here in a way that even the dullest traffic court judge can understand.(SNIP- sorry for the confusion)
Perhaps all laws should be repeated multiple times then. Or maybe we should get rid of judges that cannot understand the law! (And yes, both dooring and right hooks are explicit illegal acts under current law.)
Originally Posted by
sanitycheck
If anything, I would be more adamant about repealing 103 than 104.
555.103 is the standard "as far right as practicable" dribble that you see in a lot of states. It's not a particularly egregious variant, as these things go. It makes the usual exceptions for passing, left turns, road hazards, and narrow lanes, but not for destination positioning at intersections. It also has the "no more than two abreast" requirement, which makes no sense under conditions when a single cyclist would be taking the lane anyway.
Yes, 103 was what I meant. As FTR laws go, Texas's is about the best. Seeing how 14+ foot lanes are as rare as hen's teeth, I am always able to claim the lane. But 551.103, when compared to our slow moving vehicle law (quoted below) makes a lie out of 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
(2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.
Sec. 545.051.(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
Originally Posted by
sanitycheck
Rather than continuing to add exceptions, laws like this should be tossed out and replaced by a "slower vehicles shouldn't act like jerks" law that applies equally to everyone.
I would be happy to comply with 545.051 quoted above (SMV) since then cyclists would in fact have both the rights and duties as a motor vehicle operator. As it stands now, 551.103 grants us lesser rights and higher duties than slow moving motorists.
Cyclists would be better served by our "advocates" if they went about repealing 103 than the legislative ************ they do on our behalf now.