Texas - Rick Perry just lost a bunch of votes, should he ever run for office again

Dear fellow Texas cyclists,

We are stunned. After passing SB 488 through both houses of the legislature with overwhelming bipartisan margins and responding to every legislator's concern with information or compromise, Governor Perry killed the bill today.

In spite of the huge number of phone calls in the span of two very intense hours, Governor Perry vetoed the Safe Passing bill, SB 488.

Thanks to all of you who responded to the BikeTexas Action Alert today and called the Governor's office.

We are extremely disappointed with the Governor's action. In our view, this reflects a cavalier attitude on the part of the Governor toward the deaths of the 1000 vulnerable road users that are killed annually in Texas.

It is well known that Rick Perry rides a bike on the streets and on the trails. Unfortunately, ordinary Texans do not have a security detail to shield them from motorists who drive dangerously.

BikeTexas strongly disagrees with the reasoning stated in the veto message from the Governor below. Law enforcement, prosecutors, AAA, AARP, Texas Motorcycle Rights Association and Texas Towing and Storage Association joined BikeTexas in supporting SB 488 because they also believed this bill could have saved lives.

We will keep you informed regarding the next steps. Please stay tuned.

Respectfully,

Robin Stallings
Executive Director
BikeTexas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Office of the Governor website
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/12636/

Gov. Perry Vetoes SB 488
June 19, 2009

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:

Pursuant to Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby disapprove of and veto Senate Bill No. 488 of the 81st Texas Legislature, Regular Session, due to the following objections:

Senate Bill No. 488 would create a new class of users of roadways, called “vulnerable road users,” which would require specific actions by operators of motor vehicles. These vulnerable road users would include pedestrians; highway construction and maintenance workers; tow truck operators; stranded motorists or passengers; people on horseback; bicyclists; motorcyclists; moped riders; and other similar road users.

Many road users placed into the category of vulnerable road users already have operation regulations and restrictions in statute. For example, a person operating a vehicle being drawn by an animal is subject to the same duties as a motor vehicle, and a pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to a motor vehicle, unless he or she is at an intersection or crosswalk.

While I am in favor of measures that make our roads safer for everyone, this bill contradicts much of the current statute and places the liability and responsibility on the operator of a motor vehicle when encountering one of these vulnerable road users. In addition, an operator of a motor vehicle is already subject to penalties when he or she is at fault for causing a collision or operating recklessly, whether it is against a “vulnerable user” or not.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed my name officially and caused the Seal of the State to be affixed hereto at Austin, this the 19th day of June, 2009.

RICK PERRY
Governor of Texas

Pisser.

http://texans.forkay.com/

She could be aiding and abetting the communists and she's got my vote now.

There were parts of the bill that had me scratching my head, and feeling a bit uncomfortable about some unintended consequences that could arise from some aspects of it. (I would be one of the badge guys, enforcing it, and a cyclist on my own time, as well as a driver of cars.) I am not surprised to see it vetoed, and am not angry about it. Just to be clear, I certainly DO believe we need some tweaking of the current traffic laws involving bicycles, OK? I hope the next session can result in a more practical bill being passed. Meanwhile, I would be all for more TRAINING being mandated for Texas police officers. There are actually some very good laws in the Traffic Code that can be used to make the streets a safer place for cyclists. Too many police officers do not know the bicycle's place on the streets, and make bad decisions when investigating collisions, or encountering violations of a cyclist's R.O.W. while on patrol. Quite a few officers think cyclists do not belong in the street, or think that a cyclist must act as a pedestrian when in the street.

It is already illegal to right-hook a cyclist, for example, because it is already illegal to right-hook a car, pedestrian, or anything/anyone else that already has the right-of-way. It is not codified as a right hook, per se, but is included in failure-to-yield R.O.W. offense titles. "Failure to Yield Right-of-Way, Making a Right Turn" is a ticketable offense, whether or not a collision occurred, and whether the wronged party is a driver, cyclist, or pedestrian. Yet, it is probable that many, if not most, police officers would take no action if they saw car right-hooking a cyclist, if the cyclist managed to dodge the car.

Moreover, bumping something up to a higher misdemeanor does NOT mean enforcement will increase, and can result in LESS enforcement. An example, not involving cyclists, was when "passing a school bus while loading or unloading children" was bumped up to a Class B misdemeanor some years back. Something for which I used to write tickets, was suddenly going to take several hours to complete. With so many other things competing for my time and attention, what had been a focus of mine, became one of the things I did once upon a time, back in the day.

Another example is the offense "Exhibition of Acceleration," which was a useful tool against aggressive drivers, when it was not possible to actually pace someone, or otherwise get a measure of their speed. When that charge was bumped to a Class B misdemeanor, it suddenly became something much less practical to enforce, except in the most egregious of cases, such as when going after people who are street-racing.

Edited to add: Just to be clear, I was not against SB 488, just really wondering, and concerned, about parts of it

He is a politician.

From The Chronicle:

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry vetoed an ethics-related measure that would have mandated a waiting period before former Harris County employees could lobby the county or benefit from contracts they worked on as employees.
It was among 35 bills that Perry vetoed this session, along with measures that required motorists to give cyclists at least 3 feet of clearance when passing on most highways, that would have expanded the state’s pre-kindergarten program and given the state new powers to seize children and their medical records without a parent’s consent or a court hearing. He also vetoed three resolutions.
In his veto message, Perry said he rejected the ethics bill, authored by Sen. Mario Gallegos, because it addressed lobbying matters and related criminal penalties only in Harris County, not statewide, and thus characterized it unconstitutional.
Gallegos, a Houston Democrat, said he was surprised at the veto because the bill’s language had been revised to address constitutional issues and further because the governor’s office called him around noon Friday saying Perry was going to bless it.
But around 7:15 p.m., Gallegos said, the governor’s office called again and said the attorney general’s office had declared it unconstitutional.
“I was told several people from Harris County called him (the governor) and told him to the veto the bill. It was a good ethics bill,” Gallegos said.
The so-called “revolving door” restriction required former county employees to wait two years before lobbying.
Perry, a cyclist who recently broke his collarbone in a mountain-biking accident, also vetoed a “safe passing” bill that was a top priority for vulnerable road users.
The veto of the cycling measure, which would have required motorists to give cyclists and others at least 3 feet of clearance when passing on most highways, drew a strong reaction from some cyclists.
“We are stunned because he’s our guy, and we feel disappointed, even betrayed by our guy,” said Robin Stallings, executive director of BikeTexas, the educational arm of the Texas Bicycle Coalition

http://texans.forkay.com/

She could be aiding and abetting the communists and she's got my vote now.

I would agree if I didn't think we needed her more where she is now........

This is a rare courageous thing for a politician to do: listening to reason and doing the right thing despite popular opinion. Have you read PM Summer's comments (http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2009/06/reason-prevails.html)? With the interest caused by the follow-up publicity over this ill-considered bill, now is the time to start doing something that will actually benefit cyclists.

Perhaps now is the time to urge our "bicycle advocates" to do something that will help cyclist safety right now while we wait for the next legislative session to begin.

We should tell them that we want our local police and district attorneys to enforce Texas vehicle code Sec. 545.401.* Then, rather than having them seek redundant new laws that erode cyclist's standing as recognized vehicles under the law, they ought to make the penalties for existing law stiffer.

They should urge that ninja, sidewalk, and salmon behavior be strictly enforced as well. Perhaps they don't advocate for such immediately life saving things because our "advocates" are not really interested in reducing the carnage.

*Sec. 545.401 RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

http://texans.forkay.com/

She could be aiding and abetting the communists and she's got my vote now.

ANYONE not named Perry has my vote, and my feelings have nothing to do with this bill.

ANYONE not named Perry has my vote, and my feelings have nothing to do with this bill.

Yeah, same here.

As for the bill, I think the whole campaign for passage was a feel-good, yay-rah-rah for the Texas cycling advocacy community up until yesterday. It was an opportunity to learn more about the legislative process and how to rally and motivate the cycling community toward a goal. They fell short, but I think their effectiveness is increasing.

I think they still have more to learn as to what really is needed as far as cyclists. This law would have been very visible in terms of the prestige of the cycling community, and could have built public awareness for cycling in the greater community. But as a commuting cyclist, I think there are things that can be done with less hoopla that would be more effective (such as requiring discussion of traffic laws pertaining to cyclists during the 6-hour course people take to get their tickets thrown out, for instance).

I really didn't think passage of the law would have much effect on me. The people who buzz me (either out of inattentiveness or maliciousness) would buzz me regardless of the law.

Reading the PM Summer comments makes me sick.... IMO he's one of the reasons Dallas is in the dark ages of cycling and is regularly rated one of the worst cities for cycling.

You can't "lose" a vote you never had...Still plenty of Republicans in Texas to keep the Neo-Con ball rolling. Oh well, that's Democracy at work, I suppose....

Reading the PM Summer comments makes me sick.... IMO he's one of the reasons Dallas is in the dark ages of cycling and is regularly rated one of the worst cities for cycling.

Just curious about what makes a "bike friendly" town. Is it bike lanes? Is it MUPs? Is it just having more cyclists on the street? I don't put much stock in the ratings game.

I was always under the impression that Austin was more bike friendly than Dallas. That is, until I spent a day riding around there. My daughter and I were were buzzed more times in our time riding in Austin than in a year of riding in Dallas. Each and every time it happened, we were in a bike lane and two of those were by city buses.

I used to think I wanted bike lanes, but I'm learning that, unless they have a physical divider, they actually do less to protect cyclists. Here's an example of what to expect with after-the-fact bike lanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV3gfabmrnc

PM Summer may have his issues and come across as a jerk (I've never met him, so he might actually be a jerk). But, one thing he has done right is help keep the bike lanes out of Dallas.

Would things have been different if this guy made a phone call?

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc55/majortaylor68/bushcyclist.jpg

Reading the PM Summer comments makes me sick.... IMO he's one of the reasons Dallas is in the dark ages of cycling and is regularly rated one of the worst cities for cycling.

Sorry, to address his comments on the veto...

He has some valid points. However, what evidence do we have that we can get better enforcement for the laws already on the books? Most of these laws have been around for decades and are rarely, if ever enforced.

The publicity that could have been generated by a safe passage law would have, at least in the short term, put cyclists' right to the road in the forefront of many drivers' minds.

Would things have been different if this guy made a phone call?

Maybe, but we'd have to get him off the trails and onto the streets. ;)

Maybe, but we'd have to get him off the trails and onto the streets. ;)

It's too dangerous on the streets. ;)








...and the cycle continues...

Thanks for helping me understand why it might have been vetoed, Rex. In the abstract, the bill sounded like a needed thing, but when you look at the working parts it might not have helped the current situation. I agree that better training and awareness among the police officers would probably have a more positive impact for cyclists.

There were parts of the bill that had me scratching my head, and feeling a bit uncomfortable about some unintended consequences that could arise from some aspects of it. (I would be one of the badge guys, enforcing it, and a cyclist on my own time, as well as a driver of cars.) I am not surprised to see it vetoed, and am not angry about it. Just to be clear, I certainly DO believe we need some tweaking of the current traffic laws involving bicycles, OK? I hope the next session can result in a more practical bill being passed. Meanwhile, I would be all for more TRAINING being mandated for Texas police officers. There are actually some very good laws in the Traffic Code that can be used to make the streets a safer place for cyclists. Too many police officers do not know the bicycle's place on the streets, and make bad decisions when investigating collisions, or encountering violations of a cyclist's R.O.W. while on patrol. Quite a few officers think cyclists do not belong in the street, or think that a cyclist must act as a pedestrian when in the street.

It is already illegal to right-hook a cyclist, for example, because it is already illegal to right-hook a car, pedestrian, or anything/anyone else that already has the right-of-way. It is not codified as a right hook, per se, but is included in failure-to-yield R.O.W. offense titles. "Failure to Yield Right-of-Way, Making a Right Turn" is a ticketable offense, whether or not a collision occurred, and whether the wronged party is a driver, cyclist, or pedestrian. Yet, it is probable that many, if not most, police officers would take no action if they saw car right-hooking a cyclist, if the cyclist managed to dodge the car.

Moreover, bumping something up to a higher misdemeanor does NOT mean enforcement will increase, and can result in LESS enforcement. An example, not involving cyclists, was when "passing a school bus while loading or unloading children" was bumped up to a Class B misdemeanor some years back. Something for which I used to write tickets, was suddenly going to take several hours to complete. With so many other things competing for my time and attention, what had been a focus of mine, became one of the things I did once upon a time, back in the day.

Another example is the offense "Exhibition of Acceleration," which was a useful tool against aggressive drivers, when it was not possible to actually pace someone, or otherwise get a measure of their speed. When that charge was bumped to a Class B misdemeanor, it suddenly became something much less practical to enforce, except in the most egregious of cases, such as when going after people who are street-racing.

Edited to add: Just to be clear, I was not against SB 488, just really wondering, and concerned, about parts of it


Interesting points Rex.

Would things have been different if this guy made a phone call?

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc55/majortaylor68/bushcyclist.jpg

Probably not, that guys is so yesterday's news. I wish someone would get him a road bike. Something classic, lugged steel, maybe something with more upright bars. I mean riding a competition worthy mountain bike at WRL? Come on George, let's ride something a little cooler on the pavement. Maybe one of those Gary Fisher's Simple City with the 8 speed internal hub or something.

I can't honestly say I'd vote for Perry, despite his veto, but I could not see ANYTHING the bill did that would actually HELP cyclist rights - and it definitely had possible negative interpretations.

Why cycling advocacy groups expended political capital on such a bill in the first place (AGAIN) is a mystery to me - what were there, maybe ONE prosecution nationwide under such laws last year? If we're going to get worked up about something, why not just repeal 551.103 and be done with it? Looked at rationally, 551.103 is just "Jim Crow" for cyclists. In my book, a cycling advocacy campaign that supports something like SB488 when 551.103 exists isn't worthy of that designation...

Reading the PM Summer comments makes me sick.... IMO he's one of the reasons Dallas is in the dark ages of cycling and is regularly rated one of the worst cities for cycling.

It is only rated the worst city to ride in by folks who have never ridden here. Here (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/05/16/dallas-texas-a-cyclist-friendly-community/) is a write-up about an actual experience of riding in the city of Dallas. Perhaps if those who rate the bicycle-friendliness of cities would rate them by actually riding in the said cities rather than how much paint is on the streets, they would be more meaningful.

I can't honestly say I'd vote for Perry, despite his veto, but I could not see ANYTHING the bill did that would actually HELP cyclist rights - and it definitely had possible negative interpretations.

Why cycling advocacy groups expended political capital on such a bill in the first place (AGAIN) is a mystery to me - what were there, maybe ONE prosecution nationwide under such laws last year? If we're going to get worked up about something, why not just repeal 551.103 and be done with it? Looked at rationally, 551.103 is just "Jim Crow" for cyclists. In my book, a cycling advocacy campaign that supports something like SB488 when 551.103 exists isn't worthy of that designation...

I have not read the bill, so shoot me if I'm wrong here, but there is another post that says cars would have been required by law to leave 3 feet when passing a cyclist. I would say that is something good for cyclists.

Now, there may be a million reasons this was not a good bill, but you said "ANYTHING".

I have not read the bill, so shoot me if I'm wrong here, but there is another post that says cars would have been required by law to leave 3 feet when passing a cyclist. I would say that is something good for cyclists.

Now, there may be a million reasons this was not a good bill, but you said "ANYTHING".

And commercial trucks would have to give six feet of clearance. However, neither automobiles nor trucks would have to deviate from their line of travel if a bike lane were present. How's that for good bicycle "advocacy"?

And some states like Florida that have had this on their books for awhile, (They have the highest mortality rate for cyclists.) they have not yet cited ONE SINGLE person for violating their three-foot rule. I wonder, has anyone, anywhere in the nation, been cited for passing too close?

IMO the best thing Texas could do is retire the "Click it or Ticket" campaign and replace it with a new one dealing with bike law. I mean, everyone knows you must wear a seat belt by now, it's been the law for decades. Why not a media blitz regarding bicycle law as it applies to cyclists and motorists?

It is only rated the worst city to ride in by folks who have never ridden here. Here (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/05/16/dallas-texas-a-cyclist-friendly-community/) is a write-up about an actual experience of riding in the city of Dallas. Perhaps if those who rate the bicycle-friendliness of cities would rate them by actually riding in the said cities rather than how much paint is on the streets, they would be more meaningful.

I'm sorry, but I've lived in Dallas all my life.. Those people road with of course help from PM Summer, so of course they are swayed... he would have you think Dallas is the best.. when Dallas has never been on a list for good places to ride. I think that tells the bigger picture then several of PM Summer's friends.

I do agree Dallas has a great grid system, I ride all over on the weekends, and with just a little backing/education Dallas could be very good and there are things in the works, but things have been in the works for years and years....

A couple of examples where City planning could have made a difference..... 1st) when trying to go East to West & North, say a ride from S.bikemart on Garland Rd. to REI on 635, you get to ride the trail all the way to Royal, and then you need to get to Northhaven, another great road to ride, but getting to it is crazy getting across 75.... with a little planning there should be a safe passage getting from the bike trail to Northhaven.

2nd) my BIGGEST problem is not having a bikelane across the Mockingbird bridge at WRL and the attitude of the city about this... I'm not trying to start a debat about the safety of bike lanes, I've heard it all, so I don't want to hear how bike lanes are dangerous... but the response I had from the city council member, Sheffie Kadane was that bikes shouldn't be on the road anyway, end of story... That is his mindset.

And also.... getting to the TRE from the Katy trail.. on a weekday it is not a problem or really early in the AM, but going thru downtown in rush hour trying to get the train is crazy.. not really a safe way, unless the AA station is running.

IMO Ft. Worth is miles ahead of Dallas in cycling... I love to go over there and ride the 40+ miles of the trinity trails, and they also have a few bike lanes in places, which at least adds to the visibility of bikes belonging on the road....

Dear fellow Texas cyclists,

We are stunned.

We will keep you informed regarding the next steps. Please stay tuned.

Respectfully,

Robin Stallings
Executive Director
BikeTexas

Hopefully your next steps will be coming up with ideas that will actually help cyclists. Unlike this failed bill.

Three feet is not adequate clearance if speed differentials are large. If you think it is, see how you feel after you get passed by a motorcycle three feet away going 60mph.

Existing Texas law (545.053 )requires everyone to pass "at a safe distance." Most of the time, that's at least three feet. Sometimes it's a lot more. In stop & go traffic, it's a lot more than is necessary for safe operation.

Regardless, nationwide, prosecutions under "three foot" laws are so rare as to be nonexistant. The only one I'm aware of was one case where they cyclist insisted on such a prosecution rather than the more common grounds. Is anybody else aware of any such prosecutions of motorists?

Three feet is not adequate clearance if speed differentials are large. If you think it is, see how you feel after you get passed by a motorcycle three feet away going 60mph.

Existing Texas law (545.053 )requires everyone to pass "at a safe distance." Most of the time, that's at least three feet. Sometimes it's a lot more. In stop & go traffic, it's a lot more than is necessary for safe operation.

Regardless, nationwide, prosecutions under "three foot" laws are so rare as to be nonexistant. The only one I'm aware of was one case where they cyclist insisted on such a prosecution rather than the more common grounds. Is anybody else aware of any such prosecutions of motorists?

3 feet is never too little. Never.

Your argument is against the officers who enforce the law, not the law. A 3 foot law is NOT a bad thing. Failing to enforce one is.

If you think it is difficult to enforce a 3 foot law, imagine how hard it is to enforce a "at a safe distance" law. That's nothing but he said/she said in a court of law.

Rather than argue inches or feet, can anybody indicate any prosecutions nationwide other than the one I mentioned and now can't find via Google? I KNOW some of you out there are search wizards!

Here's the 1st one I found on Google. Is that the one you already mentioned?

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-393462.html

Yes, that's the one I mentioned. I remembered I read it SOMEWHERE! What really struck me was:

"Bultman said authorities gave him several options ... including assault. Instead, he opted for the 3-foot rule..."

Now we have a benchmark, can anyone find a single OTHER case? If not, I'd contend that if cycling advocates can find no better legislation to support, we're living in a cycling paradise!

I have voted against Rick Perry for other reasons every time he runs.

My husband and I are just about to move to Dublin, Ireland. When I was there in April, I asked one of the commuters how it was to commute in Dublin. At first he indicated that it was not safe. When I told him I commute in Dallas, he laughed and said "well, then, you won't have any problem here at all!" I'm looking forward to it.

http://bicyclecolo.org/page.cfm?PageID=1028

3 feet is never too little. Never.

Your argument is against the officers who enforce the law, not the law. A 3 foot law is NOT a bad thing. Failing to enforce one is.

If you think it is difficult to enforce a 3 foot law, imagine how hard it is to enforce a "at a safe distance" law. That's nothing but he said/she said in a court of law.

Look, the three foot law is not even cited when a cyclist is hit from behind in Florida, where it has been on the books for years. But neither is 545.053* which covers passing maneuvers in Texas. It is never cited when a cyclist is hit. Therefore, a new law doesn't advance anything for cyclists!

Rather than have the organizations and "advocates" that we support to lobby in our behalf make new meaningless "feel good" laws, we need them to lobby for more vigorous prosecutions by local DAs.

*Sec. 545.053. PASSING TO THE LEFT.
(a) An operator passing another vehicle:
(1) shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and
(2) may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.

My husband and I are just about to move to Dublin, Ireland. When I was there in April, I asked one of the commuters how it was to commute in Dublin. At first he indicated that it was not safe. When I told him I commute in Dallas, he laughed and said "well, then, you won't have any problem here at all!" I'm looking forward to it

Had he ridden his bike in Dallas? Was this an informed comparison?

In any case, cycling is one of the least risky parts of one's day. Consider this safety quiz (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm), for example.

Here is an interesting blog article (http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/04/06/law-enforcement-bias-and-the-3ft-law/) and a lively debate in the comments about the three foot laws.

I've been thinking a lot about this as it has been discussed here.

The 3 foot law as presented doesn't seem to be a bad thing. I mean...just a couple years ago there was a law passed about either having to slow 20 mph below the speed limit or move to the left lane when passing where a police vehicle had pulled over a car. The new law obviously was not needed with the laws written as they were, but (with a long history of officers and cars being hit) drivers weren't following safe driving practices. (big surprise!)

The road would be a much safer place to ride if the existing laws were rigorously enforced and officers were well trained and informed regarding bicycles and vehicle code. Too often the officer's personal opinion of cycling colors their judgment at an "incident"...more often than not drivers not ticketed or hit and runs not investigated because bicycles "don't belong on the road."
Theoretically, the new law would lend specific weight to the ticketing/pursuit of the offender.

Call me jaded, though...I have doubts as to the enforcement or another law.
Perhaps mandated TRAINING AND EDUCATION for those enforcing the laws regarding cycling could be more easily funded. I'm not holding my breath though.

We just returned from the Tennessee Tandem Rally where we spent 3 days, most of it on two lane roads without a shoulder and bit on a four lane road without a shoulder.

We had not a single person honk, tailgate, or crowd us. Nada. Zip. None. In over 100 miles of riding...no problems. Our rides included backing up cars behind us on many occasions on twisty turny mountain roads. Again...no problems whatsoever.

Tennessee has a 3 foot law. I understand it was recently enacted after a high profile death of a bicyclist. Motorists seem to be aware of it.

Too bad we don't have it here in Texas.

Let's see, it's been well over 1000 miles since anybody honked at me, much less any of that other stuff. Lots of two lane roads without a shoulder. Lots of them with "no passing" double yellow lines. Some of it (one of the easier legs) on a four lane road without a shoulder. All in Texas. Tell me again how the phenomenon of motorist courtesy is related to a 3 foot law? My experience is the overwhelming majority of motorists treat cyclists with more courtesy than they do each other.

The only incident in that last 1000 miles was some dweeb in a minivan who felt it necessary to tell me "there's a path over there" as he passed in an otherwise safe and courteous manner. Of course, his RH mirror was way more than three feet away as he told me this.

^^^Please advise as to what deodorant/clothing/headgear you're wearing so I can rush out and get some:)^^^

We are extremely disappointed with the Governor's action. In our view, this reflects a cavalier attitude on the part of the Governor toward the deaths of the 1000 vulnerable road users that are killed annually in Texas.

Is this referring to 1000 cyclists killed annually in Texas. If so, while I understand that everything is bigger in Texas, if I recall correctly only 800ish cyclists are killed every year nationally.

Is this referring to 1000 cyclists killed annually in Texas. If so, while I understand that everything is bigger in Texas, if I recall correctly only 800ish cyclists are killed every year nationally.

the bill covered "vulnerable road users" which includes construction workers, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.

I'm with Steve A. not too many problems ( mostly just inattentive drivers) and haven't been yelled at
buzzed etc. ever on texas roads.
Just wear a Texas Flag jersey!

marty

Are you suggesting that wearing that "Hawaii" tank top yesterday was an error that should have gotten me squished by an F350? I will have to keep that in mind and wear a "Bell Helicopter - Fly Safe" jersey - after the strike's over...

I very rarely have issues with motorists. There is, however, a subset who believe that bicycles will never belong on the road, and they will act the a** no matter what the law states.

I take it in stride.

What I really liked about the law was the escalation of penalties. I was involved in a motorcycle accident in 2005. The lady who (I will say intentionally, as she sat at the entrance to an apartment complex, waiting until I was about 10 feet from her to pull out into me. She was looking straight at me, and I was the only vehicle on the road at the time) hit me received a traffic ticket. Failure to yield right of way (or to control speed), resulting in an accident. The fine was $186.
So far, my medical bills have cost in excess of $500K, they are ongoing, and will be for the rest of my life. At some point I am going to have to have my mutilated leg amputated. Am I bitter? No. Am I angry? Sometimes. That incident, less than 1/4 of a second has changed my life forever. I will never be able to run again,I am in almost constant pain. The only good thing to come out of that incident is that I am back on the bicycle, and am beginning to ride longer distances again (once the doctor releases me once more).

Thanks Robin!
-Ben
ben at WABA.org

IMO the best thing Texas could do is retire the "Click it or Ticket" campaign and replace it with a new one dealing with bike law. I mean, everyone knows you must wear a seat belt by now, it's been the law for decades. Why not a media blitz regarding bicycle law as it applies to cyclists and motorists?

Or what about the useless "don't mess with texas" nonsense? They practically dare you to throw your trash out the window of your car. Yeah a media blitz something along the lines of "don't kill cyclists" would be cool.

Sign the petition http://www.biketexas.org/index.php?option=com_philaform&form_id=32&Itemid=1