ChipSeal

The Governor of Texas has spoken, there will be no “Safe Passing” legislation becoming law this Fall. For the third consecutive legislative session, special interest groups led by the Texas Bicycle Coalition have attempted to pass Bills intended to augment existing statutes in order to provide unique protections to cyclists operating on the roadway. In many ways more egregious than past attempts, Bills introduced this session sought to include various pedestrian groups among legitimate road users in an effort to garner support among otherwise indifferent legislators.

Many competent vehicular cyclists have been against the perceived need for special legislation specific to cyclists from the beginning. Those who favor Bills like this are almost without exception those who either lack the knowledge and experience to operate as competent vehicle operators on the road or represent organizations who, through their failure to convince the first group of the need for vehicular training, resort instead to placating the whims of the timid.

History

The first attempt to pass “Safe Passing” legislation in Texas took place in 2005. Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston.13) submitted SB-859, with Deuell and Shapleigh as co-authors. It constituted a revision to Chapter 545 wherein a new sub-section, 0535, would define the “safe distance” for passing a cyclist on the roadway and ascribing penalties for violation. It died in committee when, upon second reading, Ellis called to suspend regular order to consider the Bill. The motion failed the required two-thirds vote and was killed.

Another attempt to quantify a “Safe Passing” distance as applicable to cyclists, uniquely, took place two years later, in 2007. Again, it was Senator Ellis who submitted SB-248; he was joined as co-authors by Senators Carona, Lucio, Van de Putte and Watson, with Representative Linda Harper-Brown as House sponsor. Initially, the language was essentially identical to that of the attempt in 2005.

On the fifty-seventh day (20070508) of the session, upon second reading of the Bill, Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston.07) offered two amendments. The first would have essentially limited the scope of the statute to highways by removing the word “street” (failed); the second would have mandated the use of a mirror by the bicyclist (failed). Upon failure of these proposals, Senator Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth.10) proposed a third amendment which would have added the statement “or was operating on a public road that does not have a paved shoulder” to §551.104(b)(2) (passed), effectively strengthening the mandatory bike lane/mandatory shoulder use rule.

The legislation returned for consideration and a third reading on the fifty-eighth day (20070509) of the session. Once again, Senator Patrick proposed an amendment. This one would have completely removed language in §551.104(b)(2)(A) allowing a red reflector visible to the rear of a bike to a distance of 50-300 feet and mandated the use of a red lamp visible to 500 feet. It passed overwhelmingly.

Ultimately, the proposed legislation died while awaiting placement on the General Calendar.

Present

Following that brief history, we arrive at the 81st Legislative Session (2009). The story begins in the House, this time. Representative Linda Harper-Brown (R-Irving.105) filed the draft of HB-273 on 17 November 2008. It is somewhat interesting to note that a Republican lawmaker initiated the legislation this time. Her version contained almost identical language to that submitted in 2005 and 2007. It was read for the first time on 17 February 2009, where it was referred to the House Transportation Committee …never to be heard from again.

On the same day, in the Senate, Senators Ellis and John Carona (R-Dallas.16) were joint authors of a Bill, SB-488, which greatly expanded the scope of road users affected by the legislation and ascribed all beneficiaries the moniker “vulnerable road users”. In addition to cyclists essentially all Slow Moving Vehicles (SMV) recognized by the state, including farm implements, equestrian riders and vehicles pulled by equines, were included. Most amazingly was the practice of naming facilitative pedestrian road users as legitimate design users. The latter to include “runner, physically disabled person, child, skater, highway construction and maintenance worker, utility worker, other worker with legitimate business in or near the road or right of way” as well as a “stranded motorist or passenger.” Personal discussions with a member of DORBA who resides in District 105 and a member of the legal team of the Texas Bicycle Coalition revealed the reason behind the inclusion of these various personages was to garner sympathy from fence-sitting Legislators in order to push the Bill through the Legislature. Within days (20090223), Harper-Brown had resubmitted her Bill as HB-827 containing language identical to that of the Senate version. This time around, there were companion versions in both the House and the Senate.

The Senate version of the Bill made good progress through its Transportation Committee with few proposed amendments. As he had done in the past, Senator Patrick sought to change the language of the legislation. Most of the latter were minor clerical revisions except for the demand that dooring and harassment subsections be removed.

(h) A person may not open the door on the side of a vehicle that is adjacent to moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe to open the door without interfering with the movement of traffic, including vulnerable road users. A person may not leave a door open on the side of a vehicle that is adjacent to moving traffic for a period longer than necessary to load or unload passengers or goods.
(i) A person may not harass, taunt, or throw an object or liquid at or in the direction of any vulnerable road user.

Additional amendments were offered in the House Transportation Committee, which were more egregious. The first added several classes, “a tow truck operator and a person operating a handcycle, moped, motor-driven cycle, or motor-assisted scooter” and removed the inclusion of motorcycles. Had this action prevailed “vulnerable road users” as a class would be limited to Slow Moving Vehicles, skaters and pedestrians. Perhaps more troubling was a proposal to require “a pedestrian or a person operating certain cycles, a moped, or a motor-assisted scooter, from operating more than three feet from the right edge line of pavement on a highway or street.”

Thankfully, save the inclusion of tow truck operators, none of these recommended changes survived the committee.

Final Language

Despite counsel by competent vehicular cyclists throughout the process, the the Legislators persevered with their efforts and the Bill eventually made it through both branches of the legislature. The following constitutes the final language of the proposed legislation.

The fact that almost all of the details of this legislation are repetitious seems not to have any bearing on the discussion. Proponents insist revision to the statute is a must in order to provide safety to cyclists. These individuals ignore the most important means of promoting vehicular cycling – education. Existing law is more than adequate to satisfy any perceived deficiencies the proposed legislation sought to fill.

In an earlier discussion, I shared the authority under which we, as cyclists, receive recognition as legitimate vehicles under the Texas Transportation Code. Section 545.051 defines the rule by which slower moving traffic is to stay right and §545.053 stipulates that overtaking vehicles are to do so on the left. Sub-section 545.053(a)(1) mentions only that the overtaking vehicle is to do so at “a safe distance”. Admittedly, this statement is ambiguous. Even so, the concept is unquestioned. Rather than create an entire statute defining a safe and acceptable distance applicable only to “vulnerable road users”, it would seem more logical to define this distance as applicable to all vehicles under the existing statute. After all bicycles are legitimate vehicles under state law.

While the details of the next concept will await a future dialogue, treatment of the real issue bears identification. Almost all road users and law enforcement officers have a disturbing misunderstanding of §551.103. They begin reading that section and see the phrase “a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway” and stop. Many confuse “practicable” with “practical” or, worse yet, “possible”. More germane to this discussion is their failure to appreciate an important disclaimer: “unless . . . the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is . . . less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane.”

Believe it or not, almost all outside lanes in North Texas are under fourteen feet in width, That being the case, on almost all roads a cyclist is within their rights to take control of the entire lane (i.e. to ride to the left of center). When this alignment is adopted, there is created a natural buffer zone of at least three feet between the cyclist and other vehicles overtaking and passing them on the left. Since the whole point of this legislation is to create a three foot zone of comfort, the tools and legal definitions providing that buffer already exist.

Reason

Though it seemed like folly to pursue, several of us contacted the Governor’s office imploring him to consider a veto of SB-488. It seemed like a long shot, but was worth the effort in the end. On the afternoon of 19 June, Twitter, the blog’sphere and eMail accounts were all a buzz. Word had been disseminated that the Governor was close to a veto of the proposed legislation. Final confirmation came late in the afternoon, when the following statement was released.

For a detailed view of this bill, visit https://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...81R&Bill=SB488.

Much of this language is akin to what many of us were trying to convey to the lawmakers in the House and Senate all along. It is somewhat gratifying to find one government official willing to consider reason. Almost immediately less competent cyclists began criticizing the Governor and others of us who have been heralding a call to reason from the beginning. One woman, in fact, has submitted a FOIA request for all correspondence Perry considered before arriving at his decision. It has been posited that the Austin Police Department is behind the decision. I have a feeling she and others will be surprised at the results.

Reality

This legislation was ridiculous from the beginning. In states like Florida and Oklahoma, where laws like this are already on the books, there have been absolutely no prosecutions. Colorado lawmakers passed a version earlier this year and the backlash was almost immediate.

As mentioned above, a competent, experienced vehicular cyclist creates their own rolling buffer zone as they travel down the roadway. Validity of this concept does not originate with me. It has been proven through application by many cyclists. Cycle*Dallas and CommuteOrlando have excellent commentary with robust threads discussing this topic. Groups who consider themselves advocates for transportation cycling betray serve their constituents by directing their efforts, not at specious legislative measures, but toward education programs aimed at inexperienced bicycle commuters and utility cyclists. Most or the problem centers around the irrational fear that motorists are a danger to bicycle operators. In actuality, ignorant cyclists are their own worst enemy. -Velociped

genec

Vehicular cycling alone has not increased cycling as a method of transportation, anywhere.

In fact, areas where vehicular cycling alone was practiced historically, have lost cycling modal share.

Perhaps the proposed laws were less than perfect, but then so is a concept that expects folks to take to the roads and expect drivers to treat slower, narrower, human powered devices in the same manner as a fast, heavy, motorized vehicle.

invisiblehand

I am only roughly familiar with the Texas details nor am I a lawyer. But with regards to vulnerable road user laws in general, I recall that there is often support from LEOs that claim explicit language makes it easier to enforce than present laws that require more understanding and memory of interpretation. That is, the difference between statutory and common law. Moreover, if one is concerned about educating the public about cyclist/motorist rights and responsibilities, the passing of explicit legislation appears to be a straight forward manner of doing so given the publicity.

Education is a nice sounding word and it has an obvious theoretical bearing on many topics. But I find the call for education a big exercise in hand waving in this area. Who are we educating? Cyclists? Motorists? What precisely do we want them to learn? What incentive do they have to learn? What are the practical returns we can expect from this learning? What is the practical plan for conducting this education?

More generally, looking at the literature from a few disciplines across a varied set of problems, education is often quite expensive, time intensive, and its effectiveness somewhat questionable in empirical applications. Now, I so happen to believe that given present conditions, if you take an individual with some passion for cycling, that they would benefit from a Road 1 or Confident City Cycling or whatever course. But that is pretty far from believing that education is a cost effective policy for the general cycling/motoring public.

Bekologist

some texas cyclists like chipseal support the veto of a vulnerable users bill because the language is slightly duplicitious and vehikular cyklist education isn't mentioned?

sorry to hear that. i now know texans truly have less sense than most. but the legislators that drafted the bill were also texans, hmm. contradictions...

Doohickie

That's a pretty broad brush you're using there.

I-Like-To-Bike

Invisiblehand is right on target describing the specious arguments about "cycling education" and associated benefits made by made by itspromoters IMO, scratch the surface of the claimant and you will more likely than not find an LCI, LCI wannabe and/or true believer in the Cycling Education Gospel as promulgated by John Forester.

Doohickie

My suggestion is this: In Texas, if you get a traffic ticket you can go to traffic school to get it dismissed. This is a one-day, 6-hour course that is supposed to teach safe driving techniques. I think it would be a good idea to devote something like 1/2 to 1 hour of that 6-hour course to the rights and responsibilities of bicycles, just to raise awareness of what the law states and what motorists can expect from well-behaved cyclists.

If the infraction involves a bicycle (either as the perpetrator or the victim), I suggest that a special 6-hour course be taught that is primarily tailored to bicycle traffic law and vehicular cycling.

This covers your "who should get educated?" question. The people who play nice on the roads aren't the problem. The ones who are the problem self-identify by getting tickets.

I also suggest that some cyclist traffic law and vehicular cycling training be given as part of the CDL process, with an emphasis on how to avoid cyclists and pedestrians relative to blind spots.

dougmc

Really? The buffer already exists? Sometimes, perhaps, but certainly not always.

Much like North Texas, most outside lanes in Austin are less than 14', and so I generally take the lane until I'm ready to let people pass (which I do often if needed.) And if there's 2+ lanes in each direction, cars generally do completely change lanes to pass, and I rarely need to let cars pass because they already can. But if there's only one lane, and I'm right in the middle of it, cars will very often pass by not going in the oncoming lane entirely, but instead by getting as close as possible to me. Sure, this minimizes the distance that they have to go into the lane of oncoming traffic (though I'm not sure how much benefit there is to that) but it also gives me no space to react to anything they might do, they might have a trailer that's even wider, etc. Ultimately, when this happens I immediately go to the far right because I'm not going to fight with a car over what used to be `my' lane. 3500 lbs of steel beats 200 lbs of meat + 20 lbs of aluminum.

Perhaps what they're doing (not properly passing me) is illegal, but if so, they're not aware of it or don't care or think the benefits outweigh the risks. A 3' (or 6' for a big truck) law would make it much more clear.

And if I am moving to the far right to let cars pass, it would be nice to have a guarantee that they wouldn't do it six inches away from me. Not that any law can provide such a guarantee, but it helps.

Sorry, but a `3 ft passing law' benefits even the vehicular cyclist. Really, my only complaint about the law was section (i), and even that was fairly minor. And of course, not every cyclist is a vehicular cyclist. What if you're in the bike lane? Do you not deserve 3' of space then?

sggoodri

I would prefer a statute that addresses operational characteristics rather than creating another victim identity.

I think a minimum 3' passing law for single-track vehicles would address their unique maneuverability and stability issues. It would apply equally to motorcycles and bicyclists to provide them adequate balance and recovery space and to reduce wind blasts.

I agree with others that dangerous driving around exposed road users is not being addressed adequately by law enforcement. I think social bias against low-energy and unenclosed transport is partially to blame. But I don't think passing distance is that important by itself; speed and other conditions factor into the degree of danger posed. I would therefore prefer to see clarification of general reckless driving laws and clarification of drivers' duty to limit their speed to protect the safety of others on the road ahead. I think this could be done in a manner without creating special victim status and instead be described as protection for all road users.

ChipSeal

SB 488 would not have required either three feet nor six feet of clearance if they were overtaking a bicycle (Or any other "vulnerable road user") that was in a bike lane. That is because a bicycle in a bike lane is in a different travel lane than the motor vehicle, and thus they have met the requirement.

dougmc

Fair enough, though that's a minor part of my post. No comments on the rest?

ChipSeal

To quote Velociped again:

The perception of peril perceived by those who support these laws is directly proportional to the distance the cyclist positions themselves from the curb face or edge of the roadway. Those who ride in the right third of the roadway are all but inviting motorists to share the lane with them. Many will gladly oblige. Since the lane will likely be less than fourteen feet in width, the space separating the cyclist and the motorist will be less than three feet.

Slightly more experienced cyclists or those [not] suffering from an irrational concern for impeding motorists on multi-lane roads may ride a bit more toward the center of the lane. Even so, if the lane is less than fourteen feet in width, the motorist will, more often than not, attempt to straddle the outside lane rather than completely change lanes to pass. In so doing, a situation is created wherein the motorist has to juggle not hitting the cyclist with not hitting another vehicle to the left.

It is only when the vehicular cyclist takes full control of the lane that they largely eliminate any potential for insufficient clearance during an overtaking maneuver. This is because, in almost all instances, the motorist will be forced to completely change lanes to pass. When doing so, there will be a buffer of three feet or more between the cyclist and the motorist. Ergo, no need for a law specifying the passing distance.

Competency is defined as possessing requisite ability without superfluity. A perceived need for a law codifying a passing distance exceeds necessity. If one has knowledge of rights and responsibilities conveyed by the law and puts those principles into practice, a natural passing buffer is created. -Velociped

(shrug) Perhaps they should become a vehicular cyclist.

dynodonn 

That hurts, there's sections of my commute that have "door zone" bike lanes that I travel next to the inner line of the bike lane. Catch 22, take the lane with a bike lane present and get "buzzed" even worse, or ride next to the inner line, inside the bike lane, and generally rely on the motorist's good nature.

dougmc

Wow, you didn't read what you quoted at all ...
Actually, if you look up the definition, it says nothing about superfluity. Shakespeare linked the two words in a relatively famous quote, but that has little to do with the definition of the word. `possessing requisite ability' certainly fits, but the rest makes it sound like you're just `putting on airs'.
... unless it's not. Many motorists are (rightfully) wary of passing in no passing zones, and won't pass a car in that situation, but will pass a bicycle in that situation, especially if they only have to go into the oncoming lane a little bit. I guess the cyclist could ride even even further left, but then the motorist will try to pass on the right ...
Perhaps. Let's hope they don't get clipped by a car before they reach the requisite level of competency. Or let's hope that they don't get blown off their bike by a semi passing them at 65 mph and 2' ...