I am not clear on what the current Texas law is, and whether bikes going over 20 mph are held to a different standard.

Current Texas law is that electric bicycles that fit this definition are pretty much treated the same as meat-powered bicycles.

... and if you don't fit the definition, you've got a moped or a motorcycle, which has a bunch of extra requirements, including insurance and registration.

Texas even has some laws that limit the ability of local governments to further limit them, for example this one that prohibits local governments from prohibiting electric bicycles from improved trails if the trail allows meat-powered bicycles.

As for the electric bikes that can go up to 28 mph (class 3, vs class 1 or 2), the only different standard that they're held to is that they're supposed to have a speedometer.

Pesonally, I think the current Texas laws regarding them are pretty good as-is, and the only change I'd suggest is actual enforcement for bikes that don't fit the definition above -- if the police see something that is going 35+ mph without a steep hill to help, pull them over.  (They could try to measure power and the like with a dynamometer, but just checking speed would be so much easier and simplify any issues regarding "probable cause".)

Example of the sign is you are interested:
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotman … _phone.htm

If you know of a municipality that doesn't have these signs in place contact them and let them know they can enforce the law.  Should be a pretty easy sell since most people support child safety.

In 2006, former mayor Bruce Todd tried to bring the helmet law back, without success, possibly because cyclists packed City Hall to protest.  I remember bemoaning how energized cyclists were for that effort, which I couldn't get anyone on board the same year to help advocate for car-free bike lanes on Shoal Creek Blvd.

Anyway, Bruce Todd just passed, at age 72.

It seemed too good to be true.

The relevant laws would probably include :

§ 521.025. License to be Carried and Exhibited on Demand;  Criminal Penalty -- this is driving without a license, class C misdemeanor.   This is what you get when you never had a license, or you let it lapse.

§ 521.457. Driving While License Invalid, this is "driving while license is suspended", a class B misdemeanor or worse.  This is what you get when you lose your license due to something like a DWI.

Class C misdemeanors never carry jail time, so citing the offending party vs. arresting them certainly makes sense.  That said, if a driver is cited for such a thing, they certainly shouldn't be permitted to drive home -- the car should be driven home by somebody else or impounded.

That said, looking at the preemption clause of the state law -- the very last part -- it's phrased oddly.  For starters, it prempts local ordinances regarding motor vehicles -- does that mean the city ordinance could still be used against cyclists?  And it spefifically mentions electronic messages -- does that mean the local ordinance could be used against those making phone calls?

Certainly, the city has made no efforts to remove the ordinance from their list of ordinances or otherwise list it as being prempted.  (But that could just be because they're lazy or don't care to do so.)

>Details: Being “lost in thought” is the runaway No. 1 cause of distracted driving, according to a 2018 analysis by Erie Insurance, Ward's writes.

-Police report that 61% of distracted drivers were daydreaming at the time of a fatal crash, compared with 14% of drivers who were distracted by cellphone use.
-A 2018 report shows 44% of coffee buyers in the past 24 hours did so at a drive-thru; “food and drink” is among the top causes of distraction-related crashes.
-One study found interacting with kids in the backseat was 12 times more distracting than talking on cellphone.

Full disclosure:  Twenty years ago I was arrested for driving without a license.  Long story, but I shouldn't have been driving, and I don't protest the fact that I was arrested.

It's also possible that she's legally blind (legally, vision worse than 20/200 I think) without glasses but glasses can get her better than 20/40 -- in which case, most of us wouldn't call her legally blind at all, and in fact I think the legal definition of legally blind is that your vision cannot be corrected to better than 20/2000 ?

Or maybe with glasses she can see well enough to pass the driving test (which, again, requires 20/40 vision) but her vision is screwed up so that she could pass the test but still be unable to see well enough to safely drive?  (For example, if she can see clearly, but only in a tiny area?)

Either way, it sounds like she shouldn't be driving.

It's kind of unfortunate that the laws don't take people with deteriorating abilities to drive more seriously.   Yes, it's unfortunate when age or something else takes away your ability to drive safely, but leaving these people on the roads is even worse.

http://www.kvue.com/news/politics/hb-13 … /406600479

Darron

One also needs to consider what is the ultimate goal here, is it to enforce valid DLs?  I'm sure there are situations where plenty of people with valid DLs also crash.  We should start by asking what is the likelyhood of someone with a suspended DL is to crash vs someone a valid DL.  If there is no difference then impounding the car doesn't really make much sense and points more to a revenue stream explanation.

D

There's a law against stopping in an intersection (545.302.  STOPPING, STANDING, OR PARKING PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN PLACES)  --

   (a)  An operator may not stop, stand, or park a vehicle:
                (1)  on the roadway side of a vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street;
                (2)  on a sidewalk;
                (3)  in an intersection;                                       
                (4)  on a crosswalk;   
...
But it's got a huge loophole that will let them stop if it's due to traffic --

    (f)  Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply if the avoidance of conflict with other traffic is necessary or if the operator is complying with the law or the directions of a police

I know the police have had up their DON'T BLOCK THE BOX signs, but ... I don't think they can actually cite people for most cases of blocking the box.

The law allows people to stop "in the box" if they need to to prevent a collision, but it doesn't seem to require them to not go into the box at all if they don't think they can get out right away.

And on as Michael said ... in general, the police won't issue tickets after the fact for minor violations based on video evidence or even eyewitness testimony.

I have thought about pulling a child trailer everywhere figuring that the same thing may happen.  It would be great training for triathlons and long tours, but what a pain.

You would wear a long wig.  Women also get a wider berth.  Not as much as a kid trailer, but not nearly as hard to pull.

I just use a headlamp that straps around my forehead.  Or at least I used to.  I stopped riding at night after Elizabeth English.

You're right, I've long felt that head-mounted lights were superior to handlebar-mounted lights for that reason.  I can also light up street signs when I'm trying to find my way around.