Myrridin claims that this, together with the Texas basic cyclist law giving cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, prohibits cyclists from drafting. However, note that the Texas following too closely law very precisely states that no operator driving a vehicle shall follow another vehicle too closely. However, Texas does not classify bicycles as vehicles, but as, in the typical years from 1940 to 1980 in most states, Texas defines bicycles as devices moved by human power. Therefore, the Texas law regarding following too closely probably applies to wagon drivers, because wagons are classified as vehicles, but it does not apply to bicycles, which are not classified as vehicles. Indeed, it can be argued that this is deliberate maintenance of the nation-wide principle that the following too closely law should not apply to cyclists.

Well, Myrridin, I was a member of the National Committee for Uniform Traffic Codes and Ordinances, working on the preparation for the 1976 meeting for considering traffic law for cyclists, and I was present at that meeting. If you choose to reasonably criticize my description of the events of that meeting you had better come up with more credible evidence than mine. I have asked you before whether you have evidence to support another of your claims; I repeat that request regarding the information about the 1976 NCUTLO meeting about bicycle traffic law.

some are envisioning a future with more cyclists where bicyclists can't draft off one another?

police crackdowns on bicyclists following too closely?

State law de facto preventing organized charity group rides, or people riding in fore and aft proximity to one another?


Quixotic. and thoroughly anti-bicyclist.

I LOVE the suing idea without being an affected party. I hope the legal team rings up a lot of billable hours on that fiasco.

The example of club pace lines seem to have most come to minds of people responding in comments here to the OP's post. That could be an example of a bike related enforcement issue for communities and police, but so could people that commute by bike. In a city such as Portland, Oregon, examples of large groups of people not riding in pace lines, but as individual commuters, are common in a few places there. Recently, related to a point along a major thoroughfare whose intersections with a series of closely spaced side streets made riding safely past them or entering the thoroughfare from the side streets particularly challenging, the city opted to close entrance to one of the side streets from the thoroughfare.

Controversy over the relatively high rate of bike-motor vehicle collisions at this point along the thoroughfare, and the side street closure, brought to fore, recognition that many people on bikes...vulnerable road users...during peak commute hours, declined to stop at the side street stop signs before entering the thoroughfare. Part of the city's response was, to assign enforcement details to cite people for blowing the stop signs...people driving as well as people riding, but those details tend to be very short term, one day, maybe two to three day assignments. Police in Portland used motorcycles (takes up less room on the road) to stop people on this busy, congested thoroughfare.

Judging from short snippets of videos of I saw of the enforcement details, it wasn't hard for the police to stop cyclists for stop sign violations. The question raised by this effort though, is just how effective enforcement really can be in arriving at higher compliance on the part of people that bike...vulnerable road users...with traffic regulations. Citations are expensive for those receiving them to pay off, but as a deterrent, this means may never be very effective at widespread transformation of road users bad habits, because cities really can't afford to have cops sitting at every major intersection, every day, monitoring and citing road users for traffic violations that threaten road users own safety.

Answers to 2 and 3 of your questions, and these are just my general impressions of how Portland and the burb where I live, respond to traffic violations by people traveling by bike. (2)In short, addressing violations by people that bike seems to be a low priority, which has been rightly so, in part because people that ride, seem to make up only about 10 to 20 percent of all vehicle road users. If there's a fairly major incident...collision, or if a neighborhood raises a substantial objection to something people that ride are doing, the city often responds with an enforcement detail, but as a regular thing...not really.

(3) Education, role of government in that respect, etc. . Government here in the metro area has had very little role in educating people traveling by bike to be better and safer users of the roads. There are the usual, periodic PSA's, safety campaigns and that sort of thing. Don't mean to sound cynical, but it's all seems kind of part of the 'beautiful city' feel good type of effort that doesn't really do much of anything except possibly polish the image of cities, governments making that type of show of concern. Because of the small percent of overall vehicle road users they represent in the U.S., people that ride bikes have been more or less an afterthought where traffic regulation compliance on their part is concerned. Isolated examples of high bike use in cities like Portland, where on certain commute routes, there can be a huge presence of bikes, is slowly forcing a change in cities' sense of obligation to respond. Cities in Portland's situation can finally find themselves having to do something that in the past, they'd just move to the back burner...off the stove entirely. Not so easy anymore to do that. If the people themselves won't some how accomplish it more consistently amongst people that bike the streets, the government probably will have to step up with efforts...study materials, written and road tests, licensing or certification...to have people that are riding amongst motor vehicles in high traffic situations, become equipped with the necessary skills.

Interesting gerrymandering of the language; however, you are ignoring the additional relevant section of the Texas code;

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
(2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.

Care to explain how the combination of the two don't mean pacelines are illegal in Texas? Perhaps you should just get back to your 'debates' with Bek...

Very nice, you have been a bureacrat for a long time, now stop ignoring the middle (and most relevant) section of that post you quoted. You know the part where the pieces you extracted were modifying. Here I'll repost it, in case you forgot (Its the part in bold).

Like your partner, you seem to have a problem misinterpreting (or intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote). What I said was that I would offer to pay the legal costs for the person harmed by one of these groups, in order to facilitate the lawsuit, mainly because I can provide an attorney that is a bit above the quality of the typical injury attorney and their tendency to take cases on contingency. In case that isn't clear enough for you, that doesn't mean I will personally sue them...

???

I hadn't been paying that close attention to the grouse to be perfectly honest - you lost me at your scathing hatred of group riding.

I see. you want to meddle in a random personal injury lawsuit involving a group of cyclists to try to get group riding banned in Texas.

pardon the scorn, please. it isn't personal, it's that somethings fundamentally foul under the footings of that one.

It's debatable, and highly unlikely, that an assembly of cyclists pacelining as a cohesive group would violate the statute.

just so we're clear, you're interested in banning bicyclists drafting off one another in Texas. Nice!


okay, that's how most pacelines roll.





No it doesn't. given the speed of the vehicles, and traffic - i.e. the other bicyclists - I'd argue bicyclists in a paceline CAN safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering!

I see bicyclists continuing to ride in close fore-aft proximity in Texas without much to worry about.

Texas law --

545.062. FOLLOWING DISTANCE. (a) An operator shall, if following another vehicle, maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that, considering the speed of the vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person on or near the highway.

545.420. RACING ON HIGHWAY. (a) A person may not participate in any manner in:
(1) a race;
(2) a vehicle speed competition or contest;
(3) a drag race or acceleration contest;
(4) a test of physical endurance of the operator of a vehicle; or
(5) in connection with a drag race, an exhibition of vehicle speed or acceleration or to make a vehicle speed record.
...
(2) "Race" means the use of one or more vehicles in an attempt to:
(A) outgain or outdistance another vehicle or prevent another vehicle from passing;
(B) arrive at a given destination ahead of another vehicle or vehicles; or
(C) test the physical stamina or endurance of an operator over a long-distance driving route.

So, in Texas, a paceline would be illegal, and two kids on tricycles saying "last one to the stop sign is a rotten egg!" would qualify as a race, as would a single cyclist going out for a long ride just to see how far he could go. (One could argue against the latter saying that one does not "drive" a bicycle, but I don't think that would be a very effective defense.)

That said, while these things are clearly illegal under Texas law, I've never heard of a cyclist being cited for them.

All that racing law applies to vehicles. Actually, it applies to motor vehicles, but Texas law, as in several other states, is often written as if "vehicle" means "motor vehicle". That's just bad law writing, but this has occurred in other states as well.

Anyway, and Myrridin needs to reread the following too closely law as well, that law also applies to vehicles. However, Texas does not class bicycles as vehicles, but as devices moved by human power. It's not my fault that so many bicycle advocates and cyclist denigrators are so wrapped up in their own superstitions that they cannot analyze the laws of their own state to determine their meaning.

Here's Myrridin making more absurd claims, in this case that I "have been a bureaucrat for a long time." What is your evidence for this claim, Myrridin? For most of my career I have been fighting bureaucrats instead of being one. The most that you could advance as evidence is that I have been the President of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations, a Director and the President of the League of American Wheelmen, and a Professor in the field of Industrial Engineering.

I wonder, is it illegal to drag race another cyclist from one red light to another?

That is certainly the case in California where bicycles are defined as human powered devices and specifically not vehicles. But I don't see any exemption of bicycles from the vehicle classification in the Texas statutes. Section 541.201 states:
"(23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. The term does not include:

(A) a device exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks; or
(B) manufactured housing as that term is defined by Chapter 1201, Occupations Code."

without any exemptions for bicycles or for human powered devices.

An earlier item in that same section defines bicycle:


(2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has
two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.

But again, that doesn't exclude a bicycle from still being included as a 'vehicle' under Texas law since it
wouldn't qualify under either exemption A or B in the section quoted above.

Nevertheless, I see little likelihood that the Texan authorities are going to go after either
informal bike 'racing' or bike club pacelines

Call it bad law writing if you wish, but in Texas bicycles are considered vehicles and therefore these laws apply.

ORLY?

541.201. VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
...
(2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.
(11) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle or a vehicle that is propelled by electric power from overhead trolley wires. The term does not include an electric bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201.

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.

Now, granted, these subtitles are not in section 544 or 545, but neither section 544 nor 545 defines "vehicle" (or "bicycle") at all, so if one needs to find a definition, this is where it'll have to come from. (The rest of the transportation code explicitly refers back to 541.201 many times for definitions.)

And really, if Texas law doesn't consider a bicycle to be a vehicle, then bicycles don't need to obey most of the traffic laws. For example --

544.004. COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICE.
(a) The operator of a vehicle or streetcar shall comply with an applicable official traffic-control device placed as provided by this subtitle unless the person is: ...

544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL.
... (d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. ...

As far as I can tell, Texas considers bicycles to be vehicles, and therefore the racing law applies and the following distance law applies, even if I've never heard of anybody cited for either. (Though the police are fond of citing people for "following too closely" when somebody rear-ends somebody else, so maybe some cyclists have been cited for that in that situation.)

You can argue the irrational all you like (you seem to enjoy that); however, I have evidence from the groups own website that negates that claim. For instance, in discussing the 'rules' for riding in a paceline, they stress the importance of riders in front maintaining their line and constant speed to avoid 'causing' collisions with those behind... Funny considering the law requires those following to be responsible for any collisions with a vehicle in front of them, without regard to what the vehicle does (so long as it stays in its lane)... I'd provide a link to this on their site, but it appears they have taken it down since this discussion started... Well, I still have downloaded prints of their pages as evidence that I can provide in court and to the elected officials... Well that and a recording of their meeting minutes from yesterday's 'safety meeting', https://www.planobicycle.org/forum/vi...php?f=8&t=3438

And of course is the hundreds of pages of web forum discussion I have downloaded from them over the last six months discussing accidents on their group rides and how they were 'caused' by riders not maintaining their 'line' or constant speed and thereby 'causing' crashes when those who were behind collided.

Actually you claimed to have 'participated' in the meeting of a beauracracy in the 1970's so I don't see how you should have any questions about why I would say you 'have been a beauracrat' for a long time... Of course, I am still noticing that you are focusing on unrelated minutia, rather than address the FACTS I provided to show that you are WRONG concerning your INTERPRETATION of TEXAS law...

Thank you, I had not previously been aware of the law against racing... I appreciate the added ammunition.

Who would notice? Certainly not the motorists racing between stoplights.

This is a strange thing to say. It's even stranger being said by the person who coined "vehicular cycling".

The TX traffic law applies to bicycles. You are excluding the applicability of the "racing" law for no good reason. You aren't making any sense! The traffic laws don't work by having you arbitrarily decide that vehicle operation in one case applies to bicycles and not in others!

Note that official races are not excluded because the race organizers get permits/permission to run races as exceptions to the traffic law.

Not quite.

Bicycles aren't "vehicles" in TX unless it says they are vehicles (the TX law says bicycles are "devices").

It turns out that it doesn't matter whether bicycles are vehicles because the "rights and duty" law says that a person operating a bicycle on the roadways is equivalent (in the law) to a motor vehicle driver. The TX law (like many other states) only cares about bicycles being used/operated. They don't care about bicycles as objects.

Thus, the laws pertaining to vehicles as objects (such as registration/inspection laws) don't apply to bicycle objects. And, the laws that pertain the the use/operation of vehicles applies to people using bicycles.

As I said earlier.

Myrridin, I have provided the FACTS ABOUT TEXAS TRAFFIC LAW that you apparently are unable to process.

1: Texas does not classify bicycles as vehicles, but as devices.
2: Texas does provide that cyclists have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. That means that any law saying that the driver of a vehicle shall do so-and-so applies. It also means that any law saying that a driver shall yield to another driver, or to his vehicle, also applies. But it does not apply to laws that apply to vehicles; it applies only to drivers of vehicles.
3: The Texas following too closely law specifically states that it applies only to situations in which one vehicle is following another vehicle. This is the old-fashioned way of writing these laws that goes back to the time when bicycles were not classed as vehicles. In short, Texas has retained the old-fashioned system in both these aspects.
4: Myrridin's evocation of the Texas prohibition of racing as being applicable is also irrelevant. All items except the first specifically refer to the racing of vehicles, and, by their nature, apply only to the types of events typical of street racing of motor vehicles.

Now do you understand the Texas law, Myrridin?

Clearly I have a better grasp on it than you do. Frankly, arguing with you is uninteresting, so this is my last post on the subject... Have fun debating with Bek, you two deserve each other...

Yes, but it says that in the section where it enumerates "vehicles".

I quoted it appropriately, but let me make it more clear --

541.201. VEHICLES
--- "Authorized emergency vehicle" means ...
--- "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power ...
--- "Bus" means ...
--- "Farm tractor" means ...

Obviously a bicycle is both a device and a vehicle according to this section.

Actually, I forgot to quote one more part of 541.201 that's relevant --

541.201 VEHICLES. In this subtitle:
...
(23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway. The term does not include:
(A) a device exclusively used on stationary rails or tracks; or
(B) manufactured housing as that term is defined by Chapter 1201, Occupations Code.

... again, that definition fits a bicycle just fine.

No, it doesn't. I quoted that law too, but let me do it again --

... it says "vehicle", not "motor vehicle". It's right there. I've given you the section numbers, you can look it up the whole thing if you wish.

Now, it does say under this subtitle, so one could argue that this section (and the definition, for that matter, as it's in another section but has the same In this subtitle) does not apply to other subtitles, such as those that say that vehicles must stop at red lights and such, but obviously that's not the way things have been interpreted by the police and courts.

I realize you don't live in Texas, but Texas's transportation code seems quite clear on this matter -- the law generally talks about "operators of a vehicle", "vehicles" and "motor vehicles".

The registration/inspection laws specifically say "motor vehicles", so they don't apply to bicycles. Every single one of them. I don't feel the need to quote them, but you're welcome to look them up if you doubt this.

Most laws just say "vehicle" or "operator of a vehicle" so they apply to bicycles and cars and just about everything.

Note that the DWI law here says "motor vehicle", so cyclists are not charged with that -- they get hit with public intoxication or something else instead. Every once in a while the police still arrest somebody for DWI when there's no motor vehicle involved (there was a case where they arrested some drunks on a horse but that was dropped to a PI once they actually looked up the law) but then they fix it once they realize their mistake.

Myrridin fails to understand the difference between a person paid to work in a bureaucratic organization and a person volunteering to represent cyclists at meetings of such an organization.