Governor Perry Vetoes SB 488 [Cyclists' Safe Passing Bill]

At the risk of sounding like a nanny, civil and to the point please. Both drivers and vulnerable road users can learn from the other side.

I have seen bicycles on 1826 SW of town. The road is narrow, has a 55 MPH speed limit (often exceeded) and has ditches for shoulders. The law, has written, says nothing about speed, but would have required passing with at least 3 feet of space in a car or light truck and 6 feet in a heavy truck. This seems reasonable, but it also seems reasonable, to me, to ask bicyclists to make wise choices on route and behavior. I walk, drive and ride on these roads. The goal, I think, law or no law, is decisions that make the road safer for all road users.

Thinman, that's a very typical misconception. The law would just require that you give a cyclist the same berth on that type of roadway that you would typically give a slow tractor, for instance -- i.e., don't try to squeeze by without changing lanes. If you can't change lanes, wait until you can.

Yeah, and if you blacks want voting rights, you should all stop rioting in the streets! You should have seen what one black I saw was doing at the corner of 12th and Clairmount last night--throwing a bottle while crossing the intersection diagonally! This is why you don't have any rights.

Your statment is just idiotic. The point is that the majority of people don't ride bikes and they have no tolerance for them on the roadway. When it comes to voting on bonds and such, do you think typical Joe non-rider is going to vote in favor of bonds that support cycling projects if the main image they have is a bikes being in their way and not obeying any rules of the road? It's all about perception and if you ask almost anyone who doesn't ride a bike what they think about bikes in traffic you'll get stories just like mine provided to you in a tone that is in no way supportive of the cycling community.

I think you are right that "the majority of people don't ride bikes and they have no tolerance for them on the roadway," but that is true regardless of the behavior of cyclists. I think saying "I once saw a biker breaking the law" is just a more politically correct way of saying "I don't want to slow down in my Expedition for some two-wheeled hippie."

Well, you know I commuted by bike about 50% of the time for ten years or so, and I'll say "I see bikes breaking the law a lot more often than motorists" till the cows come home.

Coming home from Walgreens last night with a prescription, I was treated to a cyclist running the light on Speedway across 38th. Oddly enough, not a single motorist did so during the entire time I was there; nor the entire commute into work this morning.

I'll say "I see bikes breaking the law a lot more often than motorists" till the cows come home.

And I'll say, "You're full of B.S." till the cows come home.

It is a law, not just a courtesy. that motorists are req

It is a law, not just a courtesy, that motorists are required to use turn signals both when turning and changing lanes. Based on my experience as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian I would estimate that maybe 50% of Austin drivers regularly signal their turns, and maybe 2% signal their lane changes.

So until all motorists are obeying their traffic laws, spare me your "Cyclists run stop signs" drivel.

Bikes have to abide by those same LAWS you pompous ass.

Running stop signs/red lights and not using a turn signal have two entirely different consequences in most all situations. Your attituide sums up what we are trying to convey however; the "I'm not going to change until you do" argument will always keep you dodging cars. It's that type of "I'm on a bike and better than you are" attitude of a lot of cyclists that turn off people who don't ride bikes.

Again, I ride a bike, I'm just sometimes ashamed to admit it for fear that I'll be labled as a whiner who wants his cake and to eat it too.

Keep your eyes open this weekend during the UAR, I'm sure you'll be able to tally up dozens and dozens of stop signs and red lights being run by bikes. I'm also willing to bet that number will be much, much greater than the number or cars you see doing the same thing.

I'm not saying cyclists don't break the law - I'm saying that I think lawbreaking is irrelevant to political support for cyclists. I think people make that claim as a pretext, but actually see cyclists as the "other" and have no empathy for them and aren't going to support them whether they obey the law or not.

You are both in favor of helping cyclists even though they break the law, so it seems that cyclist lawbreaking is irrelevant to your support. People like Rick Perry and Cindy Stone don't support cyclists and I don't think it is because they once saw a biker run a stop sign (even if they claim it is).

I think it would be a mistake to think that if cyclists start obeying traffic signals, drivers will start voting for more bike lanes. If cyclists want to change the laws, they need to be politically organized and make it clear to politicians that they will vote for the ones that support them, as they have done in Austin.

Also, Mike, I assume you don't count speeding in your statement "I see bikes breaking the law a lot more often than motorists." I know you think speeding is a victimless crime, but speeding was a factor in 37 traffic deaths in 2008 (more than a third of the total).

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/01/0124AustinFatalities2008.pdf

From KVUE:

"In all, we taped 64 cyclists. Of those, 3 percent came to a complete stop, 36 percent rolled through it at varying speeds, but it appears 61 percent didn't slow down at all. "

That shows 97 percent disobeying the stop sign, if we're being as conservative with our terms as I think you are with speeding.

Speeding, by the way, is much less serious than disobeying right-of-way devices. While I don't have the methodology at hand, in past such studies I've read, being 'a factor' in those deaths simply means the driver was speeding at the time of the crash; not that anybody necessarily concluded that the accident would have been avoided at the speed limit.

But again, I have direct personal experience on the UTC with commissioners being able to use cyclist lawbreaking as a palatable excuse to vote against cyclist facilities. It may be they would have voted against them anyways (maybe not), but even if they did they'd have had to use a much less viable excuse while doing so.

As I stated before. I'm all for more bike lanes and promoting cycling as a way to get around, but bad news and behavior will be remembered long before good news or someone doing something right. Due to discussions like this I actually take stock of cyclists action whether I'm in my car or on my bike and I have to say that for every one law obeyed or something done right by a cyclist, I see 10 other things done wrong. It's like watching the news a while back and watching rider after rider blow through red lights while cars had to sit there all the while the riders were on the news complaining about how they do nothing wrong but cars are always doing something to put them in danger. The mentality of most people on bikes is "if I deem myself safe in my actions, I can do what I want regardless of what the law is." If that includes dive bombing off the sidewalk 20 feet in front of a car downtown and blowing across 4 lanes of traffic than that rider feels they are in the right...as long as they don't get hit. If that rider were to get hit by a car while doing it, they would say that it was the car's fault and that cyclists need more rights and cars need to share the road. Don't get me wrong, there are people just like this who drive cars, but sadly for them they will always have roadways to drive on.

I'm a big fan of the safety class idea. I think anyone who intends on riding as bike within the city limits should have to take a madatory safety class and carry a "license" of some sort as well if they are on the roadway, they should be required to carry liability insurance. Hell, bikes should be registered if cyclists really want things the way they want them.

Hey cyclists, if you want rights, obey the lights. It's as simple as that. I'm all for more bike lanes and safer cycling, but if you've ever wondered why you don't get any traction with your efforts its due to the people who Sean is talking about. I see 10x the amount of bikers who are idiots and just think they own the road than I do people who actually stop at red lights, don't jump from curb to road lane and crap like that. Think about how 100 drivers saw it when they watched a girl cross the intersection at 5th and Lamar on a diagonal (from NE to SW)after the light turned green for east bound 5th street traffic. They all sat there while she slowly took her time crossing across 4 lanes of traffic without even a thought that she may be in the wrong.

How about require safety classes for people riding bikes? I've seen so many idiots out there who don't know the rules of the road or refuse to use them: not using hand signals, cutting across the middle of a road, run stop signs/lights, etc... It's as much room as you need, not want...

I guess we should go ahead and repeal the law that forces drivers to slow down, or change lanes in the event that the driver comes upon a police officer with a car pulled over on the side of the road.

That's the one thing: Why do people always slow down traffic and feel the desperate urge to moronically ogle whenever the pigs pull someone over, or there's an accident that's already been moved to the side of the road? (And then, invariably and predictably, they slam on the gas pedal and take off again at 4000 rpms.) Quit being such idiotic, nosy busybodies!! Just move on, and get on with your boring lives!

agreed. and to add, the bill put all the onus upon the driver. it's important for both drivers and cyclists to exercise proper caution when sharing the road.

...the bill put all the onus upon the driver.

No it didn't. It simply required motorists to put down their damn phones and drive with extra caution when they are in neighborhoods with large numbers of pedestrians, cyclists, etc.

The "special roadway users" defined in the bill included construction workers, tow-truck operators and police officers, so it wasn't just a "Bicycle-Protection Act." This was a rarity in Texas politics, an excellent piece of progressive legislation that had overwhelming support in both houses.

If they meet in special session, the Lege should overturn this ridiculous veto.

Don't generally agree with Rick, but gonna have to side with him on this one. This bill seems to be a rehash of driver's ed.

And considering that most drivers still don't know the proper way to yield at an umarked intersection, I doubt they'd decided to memorize the exact number of feet to pass a cyclist at.