(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), the operator is presumed to have failed to comply with Subsection (b)(2) if the distance between the operator ’s vehicle and the vulnerable road user is less than:
(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.
(k) The presumption provided by Subsection (c) does not arise and may not be applied against the operator of the motor vehicle if at
the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.
OPERATION ON ROADWAY. Sec 551.104
(a) 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, unless:
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane
(b)(1) would not require a motor vehicle to change lanes if there is a bike lane, because the motor vehicle is not driving in the same lane as the cyclist. (As an aside, this is a good example of how the addition of a bike lane to the roadway complicates the simple rules of the road.)
If a bike lane is present, and a cyclist is struck by a motorist when he is operating outside of the bike lane, he will have to prove that he had a legal reason to do so, or be liable for all injuries and damages because of paragraph (k).
So basically, our advocates are forcing those they claim to represent to choose to either drive in the most dangerous position possible on the road or risk a potentially ruinous legal defense if they are unfortunate enough to be injured outside of a bike lane.
This is only one aspect of this bill that I find objectionable. Cyclists would be better served if our advocates would press for the enforcement of the laws we already have. Every point of this bill is covered by existing laws, if they would be applied. There is no reason to believe that this law will be enforced any better the current reckless driving and passing laws are.
Are we to believe that it is now lawful to pass anyone at an "unsafe distance", and that this legislation is needed to fix that oversight?
Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING
(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
Why is this law not sufficient?
The real problem is not inadequate law, the problem is motor vehicle driver's disregard for their duty to operate with due care and in a safe manner. This attitude can be modified by the strict enforcement of present laws, if our society has the will to do it. As long as we accept the trade-off of traffic flow over individuals safety, the careless attitudes won't change, and no amount of rules and regulations will reduce the carnage.
Sadly, driving a car has become such an ordinary every-day event that the potential magnitude of it's destructive power and the grave responsibility that comes with operating them has become lost on our society.
7 comments:
I was told yesterday that a key member of the Texas Bicycle Coalition's staff has come out in favor of cycle-tracks (side paths), furthering the inexorable decline to "Bikes Belong... On The Sidewalk".
The "good" news (if there is any here) is that the language from the House forcing cyclists to cower within 3' of the road edge was removed, and that the conference committee approved the Senate's version of the language.
The bad news is it looks like this "cyclists as children" law will be passed. Perhaps they are (for the most part).
(rotating head left and right in disgust). Go dig up some dirt on where the money from all of our 'license plates' that was SUPPOSED to go to Bike Ed programs, is currently... Rumor has it that somehow, those funds were merged in to TBC, er, BikeTexas, for lobbying efforts. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Should the Director get fitted for an orange jumpsuit, courtesy of the county?
Is your "news" verifiable through a documented source? The legislative website still shows the Bill as "sent to Calendars" (dated 22 April) and the analysis preserves the CSHB language indicating "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."The fear mongers over at the Texas Bicycle Coalition have not updated their site since 21 April, either.
One should never put stock in hearsay.
Please read the full version of the Senate Engrossed CSSB 488. You have misinterpreted the bill language. Also, Sec 551.104 is a separate chapter of the Transportation Code that will not be affect by SB 488. Please read Sec 551.104 in its entirety. Be a responsible cyclist.. quit posting this ignorant ++++ and maybe go to law school and then write a blog on what you have learned instead of talking out your A++. I don't know who the Texas Bicycle Coalition is but for all our sakes i hope they are smarter than Cycle Smart Dallas writers. If you actually get paid for this s+++.. you're fired! Go Mavs!
Here is the Engrossed version of CSSB 488.. can you say engrossed?? I might expect such elementary bill analysis from the San Antonio Spurs.. they actually think they can beat the Mavs.. when we all know "they done".
So to recap..
1. you posted an old version of the bill that was not even passed by the Senate.
2. you even misinterpreted the old version of the bill.
3. Mavs Rule!
By: Ellis, et al. S.B. No. 488
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.
Yes, I have double checked, velociped. It can be confusing because there is a house bill (HB827)and a companion senate bill that are wending their way through the legislative process. The senate bill (SB488) has been voted on and it was passed April 21. Our hope lays in the house to kill it now.
The House read the Senate's version yesterday, and referred to the House Transportation Committee. My hearsay (and such it was) was from a TBC Boardmember.
I am especially impressed with both bill's language regarding the overtaking of pathetic users for right turns, which effectively throws out the traffic engineering concept of right of way.
Post a Comment