BIKE: SB 859

[Robert Farr]

Chuck, it doesn't need to be an either/or choice!

Advocates can (and do) ask for shower facilities at work too, though the
Lege probably (and somewhat rightly) thinks that's more of a municipal
building code decision. Nevermind the cost  to business and "too much
bureaucracy" arguments from the less-government crowd.

SB 859 had the advantage of being zero cost. It would have made clear to
Texas drivers that safely overtaking all other vehicles -- even bicycles --
is the responsibility of the operator. And it would have taken some of the
wind out of the "I didn't see him" defense.

As a matter of fact, that 3-foot rule would have truly enhanced a cyclist's
visibility to all the vehicles FOLLOWING the leading vehicle who yields that
3-foot fudge zone. Therein is the primary safety advantage. A bike can be
nearly invisible to all following vehicles if the overtaking vehicle doesn't
move to the left a bit.

Because the 3-foot rule was zero cost, it should have been easy. The
argument used to kill the bill, that cars can't be expected to overtake
bikes in a safe manner, is absurd.

Perhaps if the sponsors include law enforcement, equestrians, farm
equipment, pedestrians, construction & highway maintenance workers, bikes
and all other rightful but slower roadway users in the protections of the
next iteration of the bill it will receive a more serious reception.

I suggest everyone on this list respectfully contact their state
representatives and express their disappointment and hope that the idea gets
a reprise in the next session. And that it passes next time!.
--
Bob Farr 

Chuck_Thomas at Chuck_Thomas wrote:

> 
> Lane,  If current laws aren't enforced what makes us think that this one
> would be? I'd rather see efforts focused on incenting employers to
> voluntarily install shower and bicycle facilities and to promote bicycle
> commuting. The key to acceptance and justice on the road is an increase
> in riders.  -chuck-
> 
> -