tcs
06-10-09, 05:39 AM
One of many stories about this event here:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D98NII7G0.html
tcs
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D98NII7G0.html
tcs
Texas - Governor Perry breaks collarbone in mt. bike accident
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Governor Perry breaks collarbone in mt. bike accident
valencia
07-01-09, 01:36 AM
Good! :roflmao2:
mocella
07-02-09, 09:04 AM
Safe Passing Bill karma?
lotek
07-02-09, 09:23 AM
didn't that happen before he veto'd the safe passing bill ?
js1221
07-03-09, 12:23 PM
Well before...
JJPistols
07-04-09, 08:08 PM
maybe he can do it again?
Lazyass
07-04-09, 08:34 PM
All this hate for the governor of the state with the largest growing economy and a surplus other states could only dream of. I'll give him a pass on a bicycle law that would have done nothing anyways.
Rex G
07-05-09, 08:06 PM
All this hate is misdirected, IMHO. I am not fan of the Governor, either, but his stated reasons for vetoing that bill made perfect sense to me. What could have been a perfectly good safe-passing bill was amended into a hastily-assembled monster, that did not mesh well with other laws on the books. It can take several legislative sessions to get some things right. I blame the legislators who just can't craft a good bill.
bullschuck
07-06-09, 02:03 PM
All this hate is misdirected, IMHO. I am not fan of the Governor, either, but his stated reasons for vetoing that bill made perfect sense to me. What could have been a perfectly good safe-passing bill was amended into a hastily-assembled monster, that did not mesh well with other laws on the books. It can take several legislative sessions to get some things right. I blame the legislators who just can't craft a good bill.
Actually, the final version of the bill wasn't amended that much. I think this rests on the Gov. The hardest parts of the bill (dooring, bike-only language) got axed in committee.
Actually, the final version of the bill wasn't amended that much. I think this rests on the Gov. The hardest parts of the bill (dooring, bike-only language) got axed in committee.
Rex G
07-07-09, 07:46 AM
Actually, the final version of the bill wasn't amended that much. I think this rests on the Gov. The hardest parts of the bill (dooring, bike-only language) got axed in committee.
Even so, if police would just enforce that which is already on the books, cyclists would be much safer than today. It is ALREADY illegal to door someone, in many circumstances, for example; it just doesn't specify cyclist. It is already illegal to change lanes into someone. It is already illegal to violate someone's right-of-way while making a left or right turn. It is already illegal to follow too closely. It is already illegal to sound a horn for a non-emergency purpose. Tickets can be issued for all of these things. Elevating something to a higher misdemeanor will NOT necessarily increase enforcement, and may actually decrease enforcement, as I discussed in another thread. Traffic court judges are also, in my experience, tougher at convicting people than juries at the country and district court level. Look at the recent ACQUITTAL of a motorist who struck and killed a police officer who was on the shoulder/emergency lane, during a traffic stop. If no alcohol is involved, juries are pretty darned soft when motorists hit someone, a "There but by the grace of God go I" mentality, I suppose.
What we need, is a safe-passing distance, clearly defined. Three feet is good, as it is easy to estimate, even at a distance. Also good would be clearly-defined language regarding cyclist's ability to take a lane when necessary, and that a cyclist does NOT have to ride in a debris-filled gutter to let a car pass.
Just to be clear, I am a police officer. I am amazed at how ignorant some of my colleagues are, regarding bicycling in the street.
Even so, if police would just enforce that which is already on the books, cyclists would be much safer than today. It is ALREADY illegal to door someone, in many circumstances, for example; it just doesn't specify cyclist. It is already illegal to change lanes into someone. It is already illegal to violate someone's right-of-way while making a left or right turn. It is already illegal to follow too closely. It is already illegal to sound a horn for a non-emergency purpose. Tickets can be issued for all of these things. Elevating something to a higher misdemeanor will NOT necessarily increase enforcement, and may actually decrease enforcement, as I discussed in another thread. Traffic court judges are also, in my experience, tougher at convicting people than juries at the country and district court level. Look at the recent ACQUITTAL of a motorist who struck and killed a police officer who was on the shoulder/emergency lane, during a traffic stop. If no alcohol is involved, juries are pretty darned soft when motorists hit someone, a "There but by the grace of God go I" mentality, I suppose.
What we need, is a safe-passing distance, clearly defined. Three feet is good, as it is easy to estimate, even at a distance. Also good would be clearly-defined language regarding cyclist's ability to take a lane when necessary, and that a cyclist does NOT have to ride in a debris-filled gutter to let a car pass.
Just to be clear, I am a police officer. I am amazed at how ignorant some of my colleagues are, regarding bicycling in the street.
stdlrf11
07-07-09, 03:58 PM
I wonder what bike he was riding.
iamsomeguy
07-18-09, 02:01 AM
thats what he gets for killing the safe passing bill , moron ....
CardiacKid
07-19-09, 05:42 PM
All this hate for the governor of the state with the largest growing economy and a surplus other states could only dream of. I'll give him a pass on a bicycle law that would have done nothing anyways.
What exactly did Rick Perry have to do with that? The Gov. of Texas has very little power and he hasn't really taken advantage of the little power he has. He has vetoed an incredibly large amount of legislation, without any warning, though. Most Governors in the past have worked with the legislature and tried to kill bills they don't like before they get that far.
What exactly did Rick Perry have to do with that? The Gov. of Texas has very little power and he hasn't really taken advantage of the little power he has. He has vetoed an incredibly large amount of legislation, without any warning, though. Most Governors in the past have worked with the legislature and tried to kill bills they don't like before they get that far.