Texas - Safe passing bill update

This just in from the TBC


Safe Passing Passes Senate Transportation Committee!


After business hours yesterday, BikeTexas received a call with some great news - the Safe Passing Bill (CSSB 488) passed the Senate Transportation Committee on a 7-2 vote!

Voting for the bill were Senators John Carona (chair and bill co-author), R-Dallas; Kirk Watson (vice-chair), D-Austin; Wendy Davis (bill co-author), D-Fort Worth; Rodney Ellis (bill co-author), D-Houston; Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso; Joan Huffman, R-Houston; and Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

Senator Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, did not support the bill as he received more negative than positive reaction from the constituents in his rural district. We appreciate the constructive way in which his staff communicated with us. We hope to win him over in the future as we make a better case for the economic benefits of cycling to rural communities.

Senator Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, also voted no. We haven't been able to determine why she did not support the bill. If you are a constituent of hers you may call her office and ask. If you're not a constituent, it would not be helpful to call her office.

As we noted in our email yesterday, the next step will be for the bill to be scheduled for a floor vote by the full Senate. This could happen as early as next week. We are in the process of identifying which senators are supportive of CSSB 488 and which are undecided. Once we do, we will contact those of you in the districts of the undecided senators so you can urge them to support the bill.

Thanks to all of you who helped get this bill through the Senate hearing, and stay tuned!

Still concerned. The State Senate website lists it as CSSB 488, meaning Committee Substituted Senate Bill, meaning they changed it somehow. It also lists it as Reported favorably as substituted. I don't know how they changed it yet, and it looks like Bike Texas doesn't know either. Yuck. We could be in for another round of whacko amendments, a la Brimer and Patrick like two years ago.

Has anyone found out why Senator Florence Shapiro of Plano voted against the bill?

Good question. Any Plano residents around to quiz her on it?
Also, I checked out the Committee Substitute last night and I can't for the life of me see what the difference is. It was late though. I was tired and could have missed something.

Has anyone found out why Senator Florence Shapiro of Plano voted against the bill?

This was posted in DORBA's forums by one of our members:


Thank you for taking the time to write my office regarding Senate Bill 488 by Senator Rodney Ellis and Senator John Carona. I have always relied on the input and opinions of my constituency when reviewing legislative initiatives.

I agree that the passage of this bill could go a long way in protecting the lives of our citizens. It is very important to statutorily set guidelines for sharing the road between motorists and vulnerable road users. My only concern is the penalty for violation without coming into contact. This provision is almost unenforceable and I fear that it could be used by law enforcement to make subjective judgments of passing distance in order to issue citations.

Please know that I have reviewed your opinions and have recorded them for future reference if and when this issue arises. I encourage you to review legislation you are interested in by visiting the Legislature online at www.capitol.state.tx.us. This website will enable you to view bill results, amendments, text, and fiscal information.

Again, thank you for contacting my office with your concerns. Your involvement is appreciated and essential in making meaningful legislative change.

Very truly yours,

Florence Shapiro

Yea, as if we don't have any laws on the books that require an officer to make a subjective assessment?

They are eventually going to go to strictly red light cameras and speed cameras for traffic enforcement, so they need all traffic laws to be written such that they can be enforced by camera. Heaven forbid they actually place a bit of trust in their local LEOs...

Senator Shapiro: "My only concern is the penalty for violation without coming into contact."

Coming into contact - she means, like, actually running over a cyclist? Aren't there already penalties for that?

tcs

Funny how they trust vice cops to determine when a patron is within 6 feet of a stripper in a darkened club...but won't trust traffic cops to determine when a car is within 3 feet of a bike in broad daylight...with a dash cam to back them up.

Senator Shapiro: "My only concern is the penalty for violation without coming into contact."

Coming into contact - she means, like, actually running over a cyclist? Aren't there already penalties for that?

tcs No according to the Dallas PD, the guy who hit me infront of an ambulnace with me riding in the right lane in light traffic got nothing, not even a ticket from teh law. Had it not been for the insurance Co pulling any form of insurance he would still be driving.

I am sure he is still driving...he is just doing it without insurance now...

I went back and did a stare-and-compare of the original and committee substituted bills. So far, I can see that they added two groups to the list of "vulnerable road users:" tow truck operators and "person (s) operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor assisted scooter." It also includes language about how to deal with "vulnerable road users" (OK, that's long, I'm going to call them VRU's) who are violating the law.
The addition of the tow truck operators is sheer genius. You don't get anyone with a more anti-lycra persona than a tow truck operator. They are small business owners, blue-collar workers, and quasi-safety personnel akin to cops and fireman. They aren't there to enjoy themselves but to do their job, defusing the whole idea of "if you want to ride, fine, do it on the sidewalk." Genius. The first two witnesses for this bill in committee were tow truck operators. Motorcycle riders are a bonus because there are lots of them and they all have stories of being buzzed by cars.
The new language about what to do when VRU's are in violation of the law is a bit troubling, but it also plugs up some holes in the original bill. It used to say that a driver violating the statute could get ticketed but could use a bicycle rider's (specifically a bicycle rider, not a VRU) violation of other statutes as a defense. So if you are a ninja rider at night, the officer could still ticket a driver for buzzing you but the driver could point out to the judge that you didn't have any lights and it was 10:30 at night. I think there's a danger here, as this is carry-over language from the previous bill that was just about the 3-foot rule. This measure includes stuff about dooring, throwing stuff at a VRU from a vehicle, and intimidation, which could easily be viewed as similarly defensible if the bike rider isn't obeying the law. Under the new language, the 3-foot rule and the 3-foot rule only goes out the window if you aren't obeying the law. Riding down the middle of the freeway with no lights and swerving back and forth doesn't mean that drivers should be able to throw their beer bottles at your noggin. It also means that not only is it a defense, but it's assumed that if you are a VRU riding in violation of the law, the officer isn't obligated to write a ticket for someone violating the 3-foot rule. I can see how some officers might use this as an out though. It also only says "in violation of the law," where it used to specify the statutes in question, so now there's an additional layer of complexity. Other traffic law? State law? What if a city mandates reflectors on your pedals? What if a county says you can't ride after dusk? We still get the rest of the protections afforded us from this bill (which are significant) but the three foot rule might be at risk.

I think I'm going to email Bob Mionske to ask him about this. Google him if you don't recognize him.

No according to the Dallas PD, the guy who hit me in front of an ambulance with me riding in the right lane in light traffic got nothing, not even a ticket from the law. Had it not been for the insurance Co pulling any form of insurance he would still be driving.

If I follow what you're saying, making oneself uninsurable and thereby losing the privilege of driving (legally) may not draw a criminal charge, but none the less I think would seem like a pretty severe penalty to most Americans.

Best,
tcs

It's late and I'm too tired to look it up right now but, as a cyclist, don't I have a right to the whole lane? More specifically- let's say I'm traveling in the right of two lanes. Most cyclist hug the right side of the right lane - thus encouraging drivers to pass within the same lane, but, don't cyclists have the right to go down the middle of that lane?(with more than one lane) In that case (and maybe even the prior), wouldn't it be illegal for a driver to pass within the same lane? Shouldn't he be required to change lanes to pass just as he would if he were passing a motorcyclist?

It's late and I'm too tired to look it up right now but, as a cyclist, don't I have a right to the whole lane? More specifically- let's say I'm traveling in the right of two lanes. Most cyclist hug the right side of the right lane - thus encouraging drivers to pass within the same lane, but, don't cyclists have the right to go down the middle of that lane?(with more than one lane) In that case (and maybe even the prior), wouldn't it be illegal for a driver to pass within the same lane? Shouldn't he be required to change lanes to pass just as he would if he were passing a motorcyclist?

Per Texas Transportation code, sort of. So there's a part in there about passing safely, but it doesn't define moving out of the lane to pass, just doing so at a "safe distance" and moving back to the right after they "safely clear" the other vehicle (TX Transportation Code, Section 545.053). This is for passing not just cyclists but other cars as well. So there's nothing specific about moving over a whole lane.
About the cyclist taking the lane, the cyclist is supposed to stay as far to the right "as practicable," with some exceptions. Turning left counts as an exception. Getting away from roadway debris counts as an exception. But the one that best fits "taking the lane" is at then end of exceptions. When there's more than one lane going each way, the cyclist can essentially take the lane when the lane is less than 14 feet across and has no bike lane, or is not wide enough for a car and bike to ride safely side by side. I have yet to find a road that I would ride on that has 14 ft wide lanes (TX Transportation Code, Section 551.103). Maybe I'm not mentally measuring them accurately though. As always, your mileage may vary. Each officer has their own sense of cycling applicable law.

Good luck. Personally, I take the lane when and wherever I can.

Tate posted this on our DORBA forums:


Senator Florence Shapiro has changed her position on the Safe Passing Law. Not only will whe now support it on the floor of the Senate, she has signed on as a CO-AUTHOR of the bill.

This is a direct result of your calls and emails. We were heard, we made a difference for cycling in Texas.
<snip>


:thumb:

Tate posted this on our DORBA forums:



:thumb:


so I guess I should send another note thanking her for changing her position. Bravo!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET ON THE HORN TO THEIR SENATORS AGAIN, BEFORE 11 AM WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009 !!!


From BikeTexas:

Safe Passing Bill At Risk
Contact Your Senator NOW!

Today, Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) introduced the 2009 Safe Passing Bill (CSSB 488 / CSHB 827) on the floor of the Texas State Senate.

In a dialogue with Senator Ellis, Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston) raised concerns about several aspects of the bill. Senator Ellis chose to withdraw the bill, pending additional discussion this evening with Senator Patrick to address these concerns.

BikeTexas had provided bill language and other information to all Senators' offices since the start of the session and had not been made aware of any concerns by Senator Patrick. BikeTexas staff are now preparing additional documents to submit to the offices of Senators Patrick and Ellis in preparation for tomorrow's session.

What you can do:

Please contact your State Senator no later that 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 8th!

Click here to find your senator, then:

* If you live in the district of an "Unconfirmed" Senator, including Senator Patrick: Call or email his office immediately to ask him to support Safe Passing. The list of senators is below.

* If you live in the district of a "Supporting" senator: Call or email his or her office immediately to express your thanks for his or her support for Safe Passing. The list of senators is below.

As always, please be sure to be polite and professional in your communications, whether your legislator supports or opposes CSSB 488.

Unconfirmed
Kip Averitt (R-Waco), Dist. 22
Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), Dist. 30
Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), Dist. 24
Chris Harris (R-Arlington), Dist. 9
Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), Dist. 18
Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-Mission), Dist. 20
Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville), Dist. 3
Steve Ogden (R-Bryan), Dist. 5
Dan Patrick (R-Houston), Dist. 7

Support Safe Passing
John Carona (R-Dallas), Dist. 16
Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), Dist. 10
Robert Deuell (R-Greenville), Dist. 2
Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock), Dist. 28
Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), Dist. 13
Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler), Dist. 1
Mario Gallegos (D-Houston), Dist. 5
Joan Huffman (R-Houston), Dist. 17
Mike Jackson (R-La Porte), Dist. 11
Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville), Dist. 27
Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville), Dist. 12
Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo), Dist. 31
Florence Shapiro (R-Plano), Dist. 8
Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), Dist. 29
Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio), Dist. 19
Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio), Dist. 26
Kirk Watson (D-Austin), Dist. 14
Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), Dist. 25
Royce West (D-Dallas), Dist. 23
John Whitmire (D-Houston), Dist. 15
Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands), Dist. 3
Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), Dist. 21

Two years ago, Dan Patrick went around and around in debate with Rodney Ellis about whether this would really mean he couldn't pass a cyclist if there wasn't three feet of room. Ellis wouldn't come on out and say "Yes, Senator Patrick. There are times and places in Texas where is it not safe or legal to pass. Whether that's a car or a bicycle or a dog in the road. Sometimes we just have to slow down and wait. Patience is a virtue."
I'm calling my Senator tomorrow AM and crossing my fingers that Ellis and Patrick aren't just using this as a forum to fight. They are both from Houston and from different parties.

Safe Passing Not Introduced on Senate Floor Today


The 2009 Safe Passing Bill (CSSB 488 / CSHB 827) was not introduced on the Texas Senate floor for a vote today. We hope the bill will be introduced next week. We are not certain this will happen.

Is support in the Senate slipping?
We are concerned that support is slipping among some senators. The following senators have been moved from our Confirmed-Yes list to our Uncertain list:

Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock), Dist. 28
Joan Huffman (R-Houston), Dist. 17
John Whitmire (D-Houston), Dist. 15

What should BikeTexas members and other cycling advocates do during this time?
Respectfully urge your senator to sign up as a coauthor of the bill. This will demonstrate that they understand how important this bill is to all vulnerable road users who want to reduce the 1000 vulnerable road users deaths in Texas each year. (See below for the entire linked list of senators and their positions on CSSB 488. Click here to find your senator.)

Your senator will join the distinguished company of Senators Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), John Carona (R-Dallas), Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), and Florence Shapiro (R-Plano).

Also, forward this email to friends, especially if they are constituents of an "Uncertain" senator.

Can they all join as coauthors?
You bet they can. Momentum on a bill frequently moves faster the more legislators who sign up as co-authors. If we reach 21 coauthors, Senate passage will be virtually assured.

Do the Senators have the information they need to make that decision?
They do. We are linking below to two letters with attachments that we have sent in recent days to Senator Shapiro and Senator Dan Patrick after they expressed concerns about CSSB 488.

Senator Shapiro was reassured by the letter such that she signed on as a coauthor of CSSB 488. BikeTexas has not yet received any information from Senator Patrick's office indicating that his concerns have been allayed.
Letter to Senator Shapiro, April 5, 2009
Letter to Senator Patrick, April 7, 2009

If the senate office does indicate to you how your senator plans to vote, or whether he or she will coauthor the Safe Passing Bill, please let us know! Contact Emma at 512-476-7433 or emma@biketexas.org.

Unconfirmed
Kip Averitt (R-Waco), Dist. 22
Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock), Dist. 28
Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), Dist. 30
Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay), Dist. 24
Chris Harris (R-Arlington), Dist. 9
Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), Dist. 18
Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa (D-Mission), Dist. 20
Joan Huffman (R-Houston), Dist. 17
Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville), Dist. 3
Steve Ogden (R-Bryan), Dist. 5
Dan Patrick (R-Houston), Dist. 7
John Whitmire (D-Houston), Dist. 15

Support Safe Passing
John Carona (R-Dallas), Dist. 16
Wendy Davis (D-Fort Worth), Dist. 10
Robert Deuell (R-Greenville), Dist. 2
Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), Dist. 13
Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler), Dist. 1
Mario Gallegos (D-Houston), Dist. 5
Mike Jackson (R-La Porte), Dist. 11
Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville), Dist. 27
Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville), Dist. 12
Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo), Dist. 31
Florence Shapiro (R-Plano), Dist. 8
Eliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso), Dist. 29
Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio), Dist. 19
Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio), Dist. 26
Kirk Watson (D-Austin), Dist. 14
Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), Dist. 25
Royce West (D-Dallas), Dist. 23
Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands), Dist. 3
Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo), Dist. 21

The Safe Passing BIll (SB 488) passed in the Texas Senate today. All objectionable verbage was taken out. No 4 lane minimum, no staying within 3 feet of the right edge of the roadway.

Now all that is left is for the House to pass it.

Woot! Thanks for letting us know.

Nice work all...this has been a long time coming. Well done!!!

Now on to the House! :thumb:

I did another stare and compare. They took out the language for dooring which was iffy at best. They also took out the language about throwing stuff at Vulnerable Road Users, which I don't understand, except that it's such a distinct issue that's not part and parcel of passing. And it might be covered under other parts of the transportation code.

Here is the Engrossed version:



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the operation of a motor vehicle in the vicinity of a vulnerable road user; providing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter I, Chapter 545, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Section 545.428 to read as follows:
Sec. 545.428. VULNERABLE ROAD USERS. (a) In this section, "vulnerable road user" means:
(1) a pedestrian, including a runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, tow truck operator, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right-of-way, or stranded motorist or passenger;
(2) a person on horseback;
(3) a person operating equipment other than a motor vehicle, including a bicycle, handcycle, horse-driven conveyance, or unprotected farm equipment; or
(4) a person operating a motorcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor-assisted scooter.
(b) An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall:
(1) vacate the lane in which the vulnerable road user is located if the highway has two or more marked lanes running in the same direction; or
(2) pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.
(c) For the purposes of Subsection (b)(2), when road conditions allow, safe distance is at least:
(1) three feet if the operator's vehicle is a passenger car or light truck; or
(2) six feet if the operator's vehicle is a truck other than a light truck or a commercial motor vehicle as defined by Section 522.003.
(d) An operator of a motor vehicle that is making a left turn at an intersection, including an intersection with an alley or private road or driveway, shall yield the right-of-way to a vulnerable road user who is approaching from the opposite direction and is in the intersection or in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.
(e) An operator of a motor vehicle may not overtake a vulnerable road user traveling in the same direction and subsequently make a right-hand turn in front of the vulnerable road user unless the operator is safely clear of the vulnerable road user, taking into account the speed at which the vulnerable road user is traveling and the braking requirements of the vehicle making the right-hand turn.
(f) An operator of a motor vehicle may not maneuver the vehicle in a manner that:
(1) is intended to cause intimidation or harassment to a vulnerable road user; or
(2) threatens a vulnerable road user.
(g) An operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any vulnerable road user on a roadway or in an intersection of roadways.
(h) A violation of this section is punishable under Section 542.401 except that:
(1) if the violation results in property damage, the violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not to exceed $500; or
(2) if the violation results in bodily injury, the violation is a Class B misdemeanor.
(i) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.
(j) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code or the Penal Code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009.

Pretty cool that they actually mentioned right-hooks in there (section e). I've only had it happen to me several times, but one of those times was this morning!

House Calendar committee has it, so it should be presented to the House next week. I believe that we have to support to get it passed. BikeTexas has worked long and hard on this one, and it definitely did not hurt that 100 cyclists showed up for the lobby day and let our faes be known to the legislators.

It got run through the House Transportation committee earlier this week. I'm starting to feel not so good about this because they "accepted as substituted." In other words, they re-wrote it to their own liking. I didn't like their last substitute so I'm thinking this is gonna be bad too. The House folks are also not as prompt about posting info on bill changes as the Senate so I haven't seen the text yet. Bike Texas is all quiet about it on their website.

There is certain verbage that, if present, will cause the original author to kill the bill.

The bill has been set to be voted on on 5/13.

The committee added language that should get the bill killed.
What is in the bill is that vulnerable road users shall remain within three feet of the right edge of the road or highway. This language would preclude me being able to ride to work as several locations on my route have either debris or extremely bad pavement (as in wheel eating pavement) in that area.

It also would prevent me from riding down my street, as cars are often parked on the curb, and all are greater than 3 feet wide.

Once again, Bike Texas gets some momentum only to lose it. This time they were taking too much time patting themselves on the back to be at crucial meetings. It doesn't appear that they followed up with the members of the House Transportation committee. They had already added this provision to the House version, they knew that there was a greater than zero possibility that it would happen to the Senate version coming through. All that dealing for naught.

OK, reviewing what's up on the Tx Legislative website, the language about 3 feet from the edge of the roadway is only in the House version (HB 827). I take back all that I said about Bike Texas and thought about the House Transportation Committee. It looks like they got it right on their take of the Senate version (SB 488). Of course, the website could be wrong. So for those keeping track at home, HB 827 and SB 488 were originally the same, but the House Transportation Committee screwed with HB 827 and it's up for vote today in the House. The Senate Version, SB 488, already passed the Senate and has been through the House Transportation Committee relatively unscathed. I'm not sure if it will get a shot at a House vote before the House closes the session.

According to Bike Texas, if the 3 foot language is not removed, the bill will be killed.
It placed on Calendar Friday, should be voted today.

According to Bike Texas, if the 3 foot language is not removed, the bill will be killed.
It placed on Calendar Friday, should be voted today.

Yes, for HB 827. But that language is *not* in SB 488, even after it went through the House Transportation Committee. At least not in what legis.state.tx.us has for the text. It's also not in the comments. So let's cross our fingers that HB 827 fails and SB 488 passes.

Actually, the wife has been really following the legislative progress since yesterday afternoon (there are three bills she is interested in). 827 is on like page 22 or 23 of the agenda, and when they adjourned last night at 11:15 pm, they were on page 8. It looks like they will not make the deadline (today).

They have been averaging 5-6 pages per day.

SB 488 has already passed the Senate.

HB 827 (which was the companion bill to SB 488) has now expired due to the deadline for second reading. So, no Safe Passing Bill this session.

SB 488 has already passed the Senate.

HB 827 (which was the companion bill to SB 488) has now expired due to the deadline for second reading. So, no Safe Passing Bill this session.

So does SB 488 still have a chance to get through the House? I understand the calendar issue for HB 827 (glad about that), but does SB 488 have to be read in the House three times as well?

My understanding is that the bill is now dead. Since the HB was the companion to the SB, and its second reading time expired (our legislative process spends WAAAYY to much time patting itself on the back).

My understanding is that the bill is now dead. Since the HB was the companion to the SB, and its second reading time expired (our legislative process spends WAAAYY to much time patting itself on the back).

I put in a question to my local House rep. We'll see if he replies back. He's a nice guy and all, but I contacted him via Twitter, so who knows if he reads that stuff.

OK, I also saw this (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/state&id=6813022&rss=rss-ktrk-article-6813022), which to me says SB 488 is still alive and kicking.

Check out paragraph 8.

So will the bills that didn't get in under the deadline take priority when next year's session convenes?
Or do they have to start from square one and pass a senate bill before sending it to the house again?

So will the bills that didn't get in under the deadline take priority when next year's session convenes?
Or do they have to start from square one and pass a senate bill before sending it to the house again?

Any House bills that were submitted but didn't get to the 2nd (& 3rd?) reading by now are dead. They held a mock tribute service at the end of session late on the night of the 14th. Anything not through this session has to wait two more years for the next biennial session, unless someone can submit the language as an amendment to another bill. The bill that we want, Senate Bill 488, is still alive. Since it already went through the Senate, it has different rules. My Representative confirmed that SB 488 is not dead.

I think that this session has mostly been a fiasco. There is a total lack of control in the House.
I have to wonder in the former Speaker were still in power if more bills might have made it through.

Just got an auto email that SB 488 was passed. Then got another that it was passed as amended. Not sure what the amendment was. I'll post again when I find out. Anyone else out there watching it online? I'm at work and can't watch it.

OK, so the Senate passed SB 488 and the House version, HB 827, died. So then the House got a hold of SB 488, changed it a bit, and then passed it. So then the House and Senate had to put together a committee to come to agreement on the final bill language. They just changed it back to what the Senate passed. Now both House and Senate have passed the bill a 2nd time. It's going before the Governor. He's got a set period of time to veto it (unlikely), sign it into law (maybe), or just sit back and after a set period of days, it becomes law without his signature. I think this one's in the bag folks.

Thanks for the update.

Good deal.

Suck it, Kim Brimer.