No more laws!

chuckthomas · 2009-08-26 09:01:58

Well Daniel, you're on to me. I'm not an anarchist, that's why I said 'so called'. I'm actually a classical Liberal, but every time I write or speak on these kinds of topics, people are quick to call me an anarchist. I just feel that a glut of laws and regulations is not only responsible for draining the treasury but even more importantly sucking dry the spirit of liberty among the people. Each time we pass a new law, it seems we are reduced to our least common denominator. As a Liberal, these erosion of Liberty are like finger nails on a chalk board to me. Until last week, when I rode in the back seat of a car and determined that the conditions did not dictate the use of a seat belt, I wouldn't wear one. Now (well Sep. 1), the freedom to make that decision has been taken from me by force and given to a cop with a badge and gun. Force, Force, Force, Force. The cop doesn't give one wit about the conditions nor my freedom nor my rights and will give me a ticket for riding down the quiet neighborhood street without a seat belt in the back seat. Oh, and guess what, I get the privilege of paying for this oppression and police state BS with an increase in taxes. F* the machine.

There are so many stupid nanny laws out there that I don't even know which ones I'm violating. I'm in no mood to throw more twigs onto this inferno. If you are driving around out there and the conditions are such that you can pass me safely with less than 3' space. Do it! I have no interest in taking your freedom to make that decision from you and sticking an expensive, mindless, cop in your stead. Oh and if you see me fiddling with my phone while I ride helmet-less down a quite street, leave me alone. I'm not saying that we should live in total lawlessness, but jeez don't take everybody else's freedom because some moron can't figure out how to pass a bicyclist safely.

I know that I'm probably the only one on this list that feels this way. Thanks for reading my rant though :-) -Chuck-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Norton, Chief Editor, TexBIKE" <[e-mail address removed]>
To: forum[e-mail address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:27:11 PM
Subject: Re: BIKE: Take Action! Email Mayor and Council on Safe Passing Law and Texting Ban

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Chuck T <[e-mail address removed]> wrote:
> Enough laws! Instead of trying to stop it, why don't we teach people how and when to multi-task when they drive.

Who is "we" and how are we going to train every single driver in Texas and test them to make sure they have learned?

I wish we could just say "behave," but it simply doesn't work. You can pretend that you're a pure black-and-white anarchist, but I'll bet you'll call 911 when your life or the life of someone you love can be saved by enforcement of the law. One law isn't enough and even Moses got 10 laws on Mt. Sinai. I'm sure there were people who said, "Well, duh! Of course we shouldn't kill people!", but the fact is, not everybody understands "behave" in the same way.

It's clear to me that a lot of drivers think it's perfectly acceptable to drive 30 mph within 6 inches of a cyclist. Now you might say that it's pretty clear from TX Transp. Code Sec. 545.401 that that would be reckless driving, and it's illegal. But for cases such as close passing, that statute is about as effective as saying "behave" when driving.

Too many drivers aren't "behaving."

We need something that's more specific to the offense not so much that the government tells us what to to: enforcement is too late. The law needs to be clear enough for people to recognize that cyclists deserve some space and and it needs to be clear enough to say exactly how much space is needed.

We can simultaneously establish clear law and educate as to why we consider that to be necessary behavior.

--
Daniel

tomwald · 2009-08-26 16:38:17

I have a lot of thoughts about these two proposals (passing law & texting ban), but I don't feel like my thoughts on these issues are solidified. Here is one murky area for me: How to balance "no more laws" sentiment with "I can do it because there is no law against it" sentiment.

I see people drive 25 mph down my street because the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Mind you they're driving around a blind corner, sometimes at night where a bicycle could be approaching them at 50 mph (25 + 25), or a pedestrian could be approaching at 30 mph (25 + 5), but gosh darn it. They aren't breaking any law as long as they stay under the posted limit.

The same goes for passing. My impression is that there are a lot circumstances where motorists claim that they can legally do whatever they want as long as they don't hit someone. In some sense, they're right, since the existing laws are vague enough that APD won't enforce them. For that reason, the community (e.g. the law) needs to specify what is unacceptable behavior. Passing less than three feet? It's less than you probably think. A motorist has no business getting that close to a bicyclist, pedestrian, or even another motorist if the speeds involved are faster than a jog. For those already driving safely, a three-feet passing law would have 0% effect on their driving habits and the legality of those existing habits. No?

chuckthomas · 2009-08-26 21:06:12

Joan is right. Use of any electronic device should be banned while operating any type of vehicle. Eating while operating a vehicle should also be banned. Removing or putting on sunglasses while the vehicle is in motion should also be banned. We need more cops, more judges, more fines, more jails, more taxes, more oppression. Down with freedom. Down with trusting people. Down with keeping the money that we earn (it should all be given to the government to pay for jackbooted thug cops who watch our every move 24hrs a day)

"Sign, sign, everywhere a sign blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind. Do this. Don't do that. Can't you read the sign?"

I just moved this to the forum. This is my last email on this stuff......

----- Original Message ----
From: Joan Hughes <[e-mail address removed]>
To: "forum[e-mail address removed]" <forum[e-mail address removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:01:21 AM
Subject: BIKE: no-texting

Re: no-texting while driving or bicycling ordinance.

really it should be no use of a phone or electronic device. How will you know someone is texting vs. someone is surfing the internet vs. someone changing their music selection vs. someone answering the phone on an iphone?

Joan

Deekay · 2010-05-20 08:57:17

Howdy Gang,

Well, this is to me simply: FOLLOW THE MONEY! We are on bicycles for gawd sakes. This morning I and another older gentleman were stopped at 6:20 am for riding on the sidewalk that connects the capital at MLK to Speedway. Fortunately, we were givin a "warning" and only a "stern talking to" by the bicycle UT patrolman...who was twenty something. So here we are two over 50 types with lights, helmets and obviously commuting to work getting lectures about the "dangers" of riding on the sidewalks.....at 6 in the morning?

Nope, this is all about generating money. A $25 dollar fine. Reasonable. Over $100? Come on?! For what?!

So now I get to wiggle around down Jester, try not to get run over by the wayward car..or walk my bike 100yards down the sidewalk.

Rediculous!

Deekaying..from Aweston, TX...its AWEFUL!

dougmc · 2010-05-20 20:02:26

It would be easier to buy your theory that "it's about generating money" had your interaction with UTPD generated some money.

Your warning didn't come with any sort of fine, did it?

damicoaustin · 2010-05-21 12:00:31

Can you better describe where you were...I'm not seeing how it was illegal to be on the sidewalk...but would need a better description.

McChris · 2010-05-21 22:08:04

I think he's talking about the steps in front of the Blanton on the north side of MLK, where Speedway used to connect. Bikes are prohibited on all UT sidewalks, and, there, a cyclist has the choice of going down stairs or weaseling down the ADA ramp.

Deekay · 2010-06-15 08:14:26

I was riding down Congress where it dead ends into MLK and a building. I understand there used to be a bike lane that connected but it was dropped and now there is a barrier.

No, I was not fined. But the threat of the fine and the fact it is not a $25 fine..but a over $100 fine is the problem.

This morning I took the "legal" path as was pointed out to me. I turned right onto MLK going east to connect with a left turn to Brazos to get to Speedway.

I had a car coming east on MLK at 5:45 am about 40 mph behind me. I had a garbage truck coming west on MLK about 35 mph. So, what would you do in this situation when trying to make a left turn onto Brazos?

vattiat · 2010-06-16 18:02:31

I would (and do every morning) get into the center turning lane at the intersection of MLK and Brazos where I wait for a break in traffic to turn left.

The only challenge is to enter onto MLK from Congress when there is enough of a gap in traffic to cut across two lanes and get into the turning lane.

The alternative is turn east onto 17th or 18th from Congress before you get to MLK, then make an easy left onto Brazos. Then wait at the light at MLK and Brazos. Easy.

The other alternative is to just go onto the path in front of the Blanton museum and cut through. Yeah, you got a warning from a bike cop. I have too. Once a year, a UT bike cop sits out there and gives people a hard time. The rest of the year you have a constant stream of college students riding with reckless abandon through there. It's almost safer on the street!

NadiaB · 2010-06-17 14:11:55

I don't get it. The "legal path" you are talking about it a bike lane, right? Is the bike lane not there right now due to the construction, because if so...it will be put back as soon as construction is completed. If construction is completed and the bike lane has not been replaced, we have a problem.

McChris · 2010-06-17 17:08:27

Based on what DeeKay wrote, I tried to reconstruct the "legal path" in gmaps pedometer:
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=3817037

I think the issue for DeeKay is that to use this path he has to turn left across MLK, which is a busy four-lane street. Bike lane or not, it does involve merging across two lanes of traffic.

I'm a wimp about stuff like that, so I would take Brazos from 17th as vattiat suggested.

MichaelBluejay · 2010-06-17 23:56:18

I'm starting a new thread on the issue of the obstruction at MLK/Speedway since it's a separate topic from the one that started this thread. Please continue discussion about the MLK/Speedway obstruction at the new thread.

Bicycle Austin forum

#1 2009-08-26 09:01:58

No more laws!

#2 2009-08-26 16:38:17

Re: No more laws!

#3 2009-08-26 21:06:12

Re: No more laws!

#4 2010-05-20 08:57:17

Re: No more laws!

#5 2010-05-20 20:02:26

Re: No more laws!

#6 2010-05-21 12:00:31

Re: No more laws!

#7 2010-05-21 22:08:04

Re: No more laws!

#8 2010-06-15 08:14:26

Re: No more laws!

#9 2010-06-16 18:02:31

Re: No more laws!

#10 2010-06-17 14:11:55

Re: No more laws!

#11 2010-06-17 17:08:27

Re: No more laws!

#12 2010-06-17 23:56:18

Re: No more laws!

Board footer