Honk Report From Ennis

Four honks in twenty miles! And that is only counting the geese wanting to overtake, not the honks from annoyed motorists in opposing lanes.

On the route I needed to traverse today, I could have predicted two of them, because Texans think a cyclist ought not be in the travel lane if there is an improved shoulder. But the other two were extremely rare.

In chronological order:

First Goose; This fella had the bad luck to come up to me at place where he could not pass me safely in the 55 MPH signed speed limit road, shown here.



He stayed behind me and honked as if I were the one without the right of way. I guess he failed to remember the rule when he first got his driver's license that the faster traffic has a duty to overtake slower traffic in a safe manner in with due care. Perhaps he needs a refresher course!

Rather than passing me on the blind hill like many of his neighbors do, he waited until we got over the rise to pass me. He came up beside me on my left in the other lane, and slowed to set me straight about how to ride a bicycle. He had to occupy the opposing lane to do this because I was maintaining my position in the left tire track. If anyone cares, he was driving a recent model heavy duty red pick-up truck. Oh, and I spat in his direction as he began to overtake me. SOP. [1]



Middle aged red pickup driver: "You need to stay out of the road, someone’s going to run you over!" These words were not said in a angry tone, just a raised voice to be heard over the truck’s noise.

Middle aged bicycle rider: "So you admit that you are such an incompetent driver that you would run into a bicycle in the middle of your lane?" Yes, I really did ask him that.

Middle aged red pickup driver, after a pause; "It’s really dangerous to ride like that!"

I then studiously ignored him until he continued on his way.

I very rarely get honked at (Or even shot, for that matter!) on these two lane roads. That alone was unusual. But this fella, after being annoyed that I was causing him a trivial delay, adds 40 seconds or so to his delay by pacing me!

Silly goose!

Second goose;

On north Kaufman, traveling north, just after it is reduced from a four lane to a two lane, this goose honked multiple times. Then he passed me on the improved shoulder at this spot:



As he passed, I spat in his direction, SOP. As he re-entered the roadway, realizing that he had been insulted he slammed on his brakes, coming to a complete stop, and marking the road like this:



I avoided him and came to a stop beside him. This is the hardest position for a motorist to strike you with his car.

Rolling down the passenger window he communicated to me.

Angry automobile driver; "You can't ride in the middle of the road, you are in the way of cars!"

Calm and witty cyclist; [2] "You have a duty to pass slower traffic in a safe manner and with due care."

Angry automobile driver; "Your not supposed to be in the way of traffic!"

Calm and witty cyclist; "One of us here has operated in a legal manner, and the other one has not."

Angry automobile driver; "I haven't done anything wrong! Your the one breaking the law!

Calm and witty cyclist, as traffic begins to work their way around us on the shoulder; "You don't call a panic stop in the middle of the lane reckless driving?" I suppose it should be noted that his right front fender was crumpled as was his left rear fender. I suppose he could've used working anti-lock brakes. Just say'n.

This comment seems to get him worked up. The angry automobile driver then said, roughly translated; "I have a good mind to hurt you in a bad way and make sure you stay at the side of the road!"

The calm and witty cyclist said; "Four seventy-five ex eitch are."

Confused automobile driver; "What?"

Calm and witty cyclist; " Your license plate number, four seventy-five ex aitch are."

As he speeds off, I re-enter the traveled portion of the roadway and continue on my way.

After being so upset by my having delaying his trip that he broke the law by passing me on the shoulder, [3] he recklessly stops in the lane to spend over a minute "speaking" to me.

Silly goose.

Third goose; Now traveling south on north Kaufman, I ride into a construction zone where Kaufman's four lanes have been reduced to two. Another motorist honks like in a futile attempt to improve the situation. As the road expands to normal lanes I do not spit, being unsure of which driver following me had poor impulse control. I pull up to a stop behind them at the next light.

Silly goose!

Fourth goose; As I nearly complete the final part of my ride, on the 55 MPH signed speed limit two lane that connects to my driveway, while safely overtaking me in the oncoming lane, the elderly man honks as he goes by. Did he know about my SOP?

Silly goose!

It is uncommon that anyone ever honks at me on a two lane without a shoulder. Both honking and passing on the right are expected on a two lane with a shoulder. Four same direction honks and two opposite direction honks in twenty miles is considerably odd.

Two of them were sufficiently outraged by my lawful behavior to interrupt their trip to publicly chastise me. They were not satisfied with simply being ignorant of the traffic laws. In their certitude, they were determined to make sure everyone was aware of their ignorance!

[1] SOP: Standard Operating Procedure

[2] Hey it's my story, and I can tell it any way I like.

[3] He illegally passed on the right: Sec. 545.053.(a) An operator passing another vehicle shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance.
He illegally traveled on the shoulder:
Sec. 545.057.(b) An operator may not pass to the right by leaving the main traveled portion of a roadway except as provided by Section 545.058.
Sec. 545.058.(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only:
(1)　　to stop, stand, or park;
(2)　　to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;
(3)　　to decelerate before making a right turn;
(4)　　to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;
(5)　　to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(6)　　as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(7)　　to avoid a collision.

He operated his vehicle in a reckless manner without due care: Sec. 545.401.(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful [sic] or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Curiously, this is the statute he accused me of violating. To whom does it most accurately apply to? Sec. 545.363. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

An open letter to the City of Manor

I have, this evening, sent another email inquiry to the stewards of the city of Manor Texas. I am making the email public because I am perceiving a certain amount of unresponsiveness from the city Fathers about this. I have asked some old questions that have gone unanswered, and I have added some new ones that are a bit more pointed.

The statements attributed to the city manager are alarming, and there is an unseemly odor to these proceedings. I hope that these questions will be answered to everyones satisfaction quickly and completely. Perhaps a little sunshine will help us all to see more clearly.

Dear Judge Haisler, the Austin American-Statesman has published an article about the bicycle ban in Manor. In it, the reporter quotes Phil Tate as saying:

"Enforcement will begin at the end of the month at the earliest, Manor City Manager Phil Tate said. Violating the ordinance will be a misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $200, according to the ordinance.
The two-lane road is narrow, has heavy traffic and is in bad shape with huge cracks, Tate said.
The "City Council has found that prohibiting the use of bicycles on Brenham Street east of FM 973 to the City limits is necessary to protect the public from harm," the ordinance says.
"It's a poor place to be riding bicycles," Tate said. There are several other roads where bicyclists can ride, he said.
Tate said there are no immediate plans to repave or rebuild the road."

Naturally this is alarming to to those who are fond of the "public" part of public road.

1) Did this reporter correctly quote the good city manager?

2) If not, would you please clarify the situation for me? What he is reported to have said is at odds with our previous correspondence.

3) Is it the city's position that some roads are "too narrow and have too much traffic" on them to safely accommodate all legal vehicles?

4) Because pedestrians are not prohibited from this section of the road, do you anticipate that the shoulder-less road will accommodate cyclists walking through that section?

5) If the road surface conditions are as bad as some eyewitnesses have reported, why has the city seen fit to continue to allow motorcycles and other two wheeled vehicles access to this section of the road?

6) Is it the city's opinion that this road beyond their jurisdiction is also dangerous for cyclists, and have they alerted any other jurisdictions of such existing conditions?

7) What is causing the road outside your jurisdiction to be constituted a dangerous condition? (Is it a surface hazard as well or are cyclists simply annoying the local motorists by impeding their progress?)

An anonymous commenter left this message on my blog:

"I have some insight as to the condition of this stretch of road. On Aug 30 while riding with friends, I hit a large crack in the road about a yard long, 4 inches wide and about a foot deep. No shoulder. There were lots of these cracks or crevices. I suffered many injuries -- broken hand, torn hamstring, ripped face and mouth, etc.... (I was wearing a helmet, which got cracked.) It is extremely unsafe for bikes."

This new information has spawned a more questions.

8) To your knowledge, is the described road condition by Anonymous the reason for restricting bicycle use on that road?

9) Is Anonymous the only person who has been injured by this road hazard?

10) Is his description of the hazard accurate?

11) Is this particular road condition also a hazard for motorcyclists?

12) What steps are being planned or implemented to fix the problem.

13) What is the tentative time-line for those repairs and the estimated time of completion?

14) If road conditions present such a clear and present public danger to warrant the banishment of an entire class of vehicle, why are you waiting seven weeks from passing the ordinance to enforce it?

There my dear reader, we await a response. Are there any questions you have that have not been addressed in light of the information we have?

The Steps of the Dance

Most of us use the roadway system as we do our common everyday electronics—we tend to take for granted what makes them function. There is a practical elegance to the way our streets and roads operate, and a greater awareness of it would make us all more civil, safer and cooperative citizens.

There are two overarching principles that are the basis of our uniform traffic code. These two principles lead inevitably to six basic rules of traffic that govern nearly all of our daily traffic experience.

While they are known subconsciously and perhaps intuitively, most folks who operate motor vehicles on our nations roadways are unfamiliar with this more formalized expression of these principles. Even so, they operate by them when following the traffic laws and the traffic control devices found on their way.

Here are the arch-principles and the six basic laws of traffic that follow from them.

Travel to the right

Early roads had no lanes, and the width of the entire road could be quite narrow. It became customary in the United States that traffic would stay to the right to reduce chaos, perhaps following established maritime law. Other countries developed a stay to left tradition. From this arch-principle flows these two basic laws of traffic;

1) Always operate on the right-hand side of the roadway, not on the left.

2) When approaching an intersection, position yourself according to the direction in which you want to go. Right-turning drivers are at the right, left-turning drivers are at the left, close to the center of the roadway, and straight-through drivers are between them, as conditions allow.

We practice this every time we take to the public road, but few of us have been exposed to the formalized stating of it. The second basic rule as stated presumes multiple lanes in each direction, but even on streets without lanes we turn right from close to the curb and turn left from the center area of the street.

First come, first served

The public space is a finite resource. How is it to be distributed to the public in a fair way? This arch-principle addresses that. It epitomizes the meaning of public in "public road". Everyone has the right to travel in the public space, and they have a right to a reasonable amount space in front of them, behind them and to their sides in order to travel safely.

3) When two operators are traveling in the same direction in a travel lane, the one behind the other must leave enough space to avoid colliding with the operator in front of him.

Most of us today think of this rule as part of the driver’s prime directive; "Thou shalt not hit things". But it is also a fundamental expression of the right of way on public roads. One cannot simply crash into slower traffic, we must overtake them when it is safe and to do so with due care.

4) When approaching a road that is larger than the one you are on, or carries more traffic, or faster traffic, or is protected by a stop or yield sign, you must yield to traffic on that roadway. Yielding means looking left and right until you see that no traffic is approaching so closely as to constitute a danger.

A person traveling down a road has "the right of way", meaning you can’t just pull out in front of someone and put them in danger. We must allow him access to a reasonable amount of space in front of him to avoid a collision. We operate under this principle all the time, and we have an expectation it will be observed by folks pulling onto the road in front of us. The law grants us the right of way, and the lawful operator respects it.

5) When intending to move your line of travel either left or right upon the roadway, you must yield to traffic in the new line of travel. Yielding means looking in front and behind until you see that both directions are clear, that there is no traffic approaching so closely as to constitute a danger.

We have the right to the space we are occupying within a lane of travel, and it should not be encroached upon.

6) When operating between intersections, drivers position themselves according to their speed relative to other traffic. Parked vehicles are next to the curb, slow drivers are next to them, while the fastest traffic is to the left, next to the centerline as conditions of the roadway allow.

This is the speed positioning rule. It implies that overtaking shall be done on the left, and passing on the right is discouraged. The fastest traffic should return to the right lanes when slower traffic has been cleared.

These six basic rules interact with one another. For example, it is unlawful in many states to change lanes within an intersection. Someone entering the roadway at the intersection may proceed into the lane someone is merging into, inadvertently violating his right of way.

The uniform traffic code, adopted in whole -or with few exceptions to the body of it- by the various states means that a person driving into an unfamiliar place anywhere in the country will be able to operate with little difficulty. The local streets and their working function will seem normal to him.

This system functions just fine without an explanation of the underlying principles; As a result, most people have never thought about, or clearly understood them, as long as the other traffic around them has similar operational characteristics.

What do you mean by traffic, anyway?

Our society has seen fit to divide "traffic" into three basic types; Pedestrians, human powered vehicles and motor vehicles. The vehicle laws make some exceptions and special rules for each class to reflect their differing operational characteristics on our public roads.

Motorists and cyclists must yield right of way to pedestrians crossing the roadway at a crosswalk, for example. [3] Cyclists are often restricted from using limited access highways because they are not capable of maintaining the minimum speed required for safe operation. People who wish to operate motor vehicles on the public way are subject to licensing and insurance requirements due to the potential damage and injury that the misuse of such vehicles can do to others.

Because motor vehicles are the overwhelming majority of traffic on public roads, people tend to think of "traffic" as only consisting of automobiles and the like. But most states define what they mean by "traffic" in the highway codes to include a much broader variety in modes of travel than just motor vehicles. (Because I am a citizen of Texas, and as I am most familiar with their codes, I will now be speaking less generally and more specifically of the Texas Transportation Code. [TTC]) The TTC defines "traffic" as; "pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles… singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel." [1]

I doubt most Texas drivers think of horse drawn wagons when they think of traffic! And yet, the law recognizes and allows for a horse drawn wagon to have the same right of way as an automobile, that is, a reasonable amount space in front of them, behind them and to their sides in order to travel safely on the public road.

The traffic laws apply to all these different road users as the nature of their vehicle allows. [2]

Thwarted expectations lead to anger.

Perhaps because motor vehicles are the most common form of traffic on public streets today, there is a popular expectation that people ought to proceed at or above the speed limit regardless of prevailing conditions.

The necessity of putting a limit on the maximum speed one can travel is almost entirely a creation of the automobile itself. As automobiles became more powerful, all societies determined that speed limits were necessary to protect the innocent public from the destructive power of such fast heavy vehicles. While an out-of-control bicycle can cause severe injury, it can never approach the damage potential of a 4,000 lb. vehicle.

But a maximum speed limit is just that; A cap on how fast a motor vehicle can operate on a public road in perfect conditions, for the purpose of public safety.

Certainly upon a moments reflection, one can describe dozens of conditions that would prevent operating at maximum speed; Inclement weather, poor road surface, blind corners and hills, animals on the roadway, construction activity, slow traffic, trains at railroad crossings, emergency vehicles and even traffic lights! These conditions and more inhibit our forward progress endlessly.

So is it any wonder that a motorist going about with an expectation of traveling at top speed is constantly frustrated and annoyed? Is not this foolish expectation a source of his angst?

This anger often finds a scapegoat when the impedance is non-standard traffic, like a cyclist. A few of our fellow citizens take advantage of their position of power and anonymity inside their automobile to bully and harass lawful travelers on our public roads. Incivility abounds.

Right of way and impeding others.

Not understanding the six basic rules leads to a misunderstanding of the difference between lawful impedance and unlawful impedance.

As we go about our daily travels, we are impeded at every turn. That is, someone using the public road manages to be in the way of faster traffic, forcing us to slow down to avoid hitting them. Nearly all of these conflicts are a lawful interruption of your forward progress. In fact, most traffic conflicts are so common we hardly consider them an impedance at all! That is, as long as the impedance fits your definition of traffic!

If it is an automobile in the lane ahead of you waiting for oncoming traffic before executing a left turn that is causing you to slow down and even stop, it is no big deal. But if it is a cyclist in the lane ahead of you, well, that is a horse of a different color! "Doesn't he know that the roads are designed for cars!" is an oft heard complaint. (Actually, most roads are designed so that trucks can operate on them. Should we be glad truckers deign to allow us to drive our cars on them?)

All operators of vehicles have the same rights and duties on public streets. Parking a vehicle in a travel lane would be against the law, (unlawfully impeding traffic) unless the vehicle was broken down and unable to move out of the way. Traveling unreasonably slowly can also be an illegal impedance, if the vehicle is capable of keeping up with the faster traffic around him. And this is the notion that creates allot of the animosity toward bicycles: Aren’t bicycles impeding traffic because they are moving so much slower than other traffic?

If the cyclist is traveling at a reasonable pace for a bicycle, then it not an illegal impedance. He is operating a slow vehicle, and one that drivers of fast vehicles must give way to as they would to any other slow traffic. You know, buses, farm equipment, street sweepers and the like. The automobile operator has the obligation to respect the cyclist’s right of first come first served, just as he would the driver of any other slow vehicle.

Doesn’t the operator of a bicycle have an obligation to stay out of the way of faster traffic?

Sometimes, but rarely. Most states require cyclists to ride as close to the edge of the roadway as practicable. (Yes, practicable!) This is a reflection of the unique characteristics of the narrow profile of a bicycle. It is the only vehicle on public roads that is required to share a lane side-by-side with automobiles in some circumstances. And it is the only vehicle that is directed by law as to where in the travel lane he must operate.

But because operating within the same travel lane side-by-side with faster traffic is often neither safe nor practicable, the law has made exceptions to those rules. In Texas, those exceptions include, but are not limited to, a condition of the roadway, pedestrians in the lane, surface hazards, parked cars, and if the travel lane is less than fourteen feet wide. [4]

It may not be obvious to the motorist why the cyclist is not operating closer to the edge of the roadway than he is, but that is really immaterial to his performance of his duty to use due care. If there is not enough room to pass a cyclist with reasonable safety within the lane, the faster traffic must change lanes to pass him. (It is illegal in Texas to straddle the lane.) [5]

One or more exceptions to the far-to-right rule is present on almost every road in Texas.

Motorists will often get extremely angry when two cyclists are riding abreast in a traffic lane, even though the travel lane is too narrow to allow a car and a bicycle to travel side-by-side. Before slandering the character of the cyclists in front of you, please consider whether you would be able to pass a solo cyclist without changing lanes.

Some have told me that a cyclist must ride on an improved shoulder alongside a roadway if one is available, but a careful reading of the statutes shows that this is false in Texas. A cyclist is permitted to ride on an improved shoulder, but this is not mandatory. [6] In fact, it could be argued that doing so removes a cyclist from many legal obligations and protections. [7] I am of the opinion that riding on the shoulder is more dangerous than operating in the roadway. [8]

Access to the roadway space is allocated on a first come, first served basis for every form of traffic. So if you see a cyclist in the travel lane ahead of you, don’t be afraid to touch your brakes. Calm down, it is really not that hard to pass a cyclist safely! Just treat them as you would any other slow moving vehicle. With but a moments delay, you will be speeding off to the next traffic conflict or red light in no time!

Acknowledgments. I am, as it has been said, standing on the shoulders of giants! The basic principles spring from John Forester, but I have added to his list of five the one about following distance.

Any clarity I have on traffic dynamics and impedance must be credited to Mighk Wilson, Keri Caffrey and Herman May who have done most of the heavy lifting for me.

Thanks also to P.M. Summer and everyone on the ChainGuard mailing list who have unlocked many mysterious traffic engineering concepts for me.

Footnotes:

[1] Sec.　541.301.　　TRAFFIC.　 In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel.
Sec.　541.201. (23)　　"Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.

[2] Sec.　545.002.　　OPERATOR.　 In this chapter, a reference to an operator includes a reference to the vehicle operated by the operator if the reference imposes a duty or provides a limitation on the movement or other operation of that vehicle

[3] Sec. 552.003. PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALK. (a) The operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if: (1) no traffic control signal is in place or in operation; and (2) the pedestrian is: (A) on the half of the roadway in which the vehicle is traveling; or (B) approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible for the vehicle operator to yield. (c) The operator of a vehicle approaching from the rear of a vehicle that is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross a roadway may not pass the stopped vehicle.

Sec. 552.005. CROSSING AT POINT OTHER THAN CROSSWALK. (a) A pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the highway if crossing a roadway at a place: (1) other than in a marked crosswalk or in an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection; or (2) where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided. (b) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, a pedestrian may cross only in a marked crosswalk. (c) A pedestrian may cross a roadway intersection diagonally only if and in the manner authorized by a traffic control device.

[4] Sec.　551.103.　　OPERATION ON ROADWAY.　
(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:
(1)　　the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2)　　the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3)　　a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(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; or
too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
　
[5] Sec.　545.060.　　DRIVING ON ROADWAY LANED FOR TRAFFIC.　 (a)　　An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane.

[6] Sec.　545.058.　　DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER.　(c)　　A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to: (3) a bicycle

[7] The rights and duties spelled out in the TTC only apply to operators of bicycles riding on a "highway". Sec.　551.001.　　PERSONS AFFECTED.　 Except as provided by Subchapter C, this chapter applies only to a person operating a bicycle on: (1)　　a highway; or (2)　　a path set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.
The TTC defines a highway as "Sec.　541.302. (5)　　"Highway or street" means the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way any part of which is open to the public for vehicular travel." Which seems to mean from fence-line to fence-line, except for the part about "open to the public for vehicular travel".
The TTC defines a shoulder as; "Sec.　541.302. (15)　　"Shoulder" means the portion of a highway that is: (A)　　adjacent to the roadway; (B)　　designed or ordinarily used for parking; (C)　　distinguished from the roadway by different design, construction, or marking; and (D) not intended for normal vehicular travel."
I must conclude then that a shoulder is not a part of the highway, and so, under this interpretation, the rights enjoyed by a cyclist on the roadway may not extend to those riding on the shoulder.

[8] With the many distractions inside the cabin of the modern automobile, and the tendency of a distracted driver to drift to the right, I am more comfortable in the lane in front of the distracted driver where I am more likely to be noticed than on the shoulder and overlooked. There are many other reasons as well, but isn’t this one sufficient all by itself?

The Truth About Manor's Bicycle Ban

Because the initial report was generated by a paper only local paper, confirming the the details of the reported bicycle ban on East Brenham Road in the City of Manor (Near Austin) has been difficult for those in distant parts of Texas that have been alarmed by the rumored event.

Yesterday evening, after dark, I sent an e-mail to the City of Manor asking for details and and a series of questions. To my astonishment, I received a reply back within ten minutes of my inquiry!

So in the interest of stopping false rumors and promoting the truth, here is Judge Haisler's reply:

I'm out-of-state right now so I'll try to answer your questions to the best of my knowledge (I'll double check when I get back to the office).

Manor only restricted bicycles on a small section of roadway along East Brenham due to the dangerous condition of the road (and a recent bicycle injury). Another blogger/magazine editor inaccurately published that Manor banned bicycles and we've been flooded with e-mails all day regarding this very issue. Below are the answers to your questions, please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.

Best,Dustin

1) What is the history of this ordinance? Passed 10/21/2009
2) What is the reason for the ban? Only restricted on a small section of roadway along East Brenham due to dangerous road conditions
3) Is it to be a temporary ban or is it intended to be permanent? Temporary
4) When does the ordinance take effect? Now (To my knowledge)
5)What are the penalties for violating this law? Any city ordinance has a fine up to $2,000 by Texas law
6)How is an out of town visitor to be alerted to the new law? A sign will be placed on the affected road
7)What are the alternatives for folks who travel about operating the banned vehicles who would otherwise travel on that previously public road? Detour along Old Highway 20

Dustin Haisler
Municipal Judge

So there you have it folks! A temporary restriction due to hazardous road conditions.

A glance at Google maps shows that this would be a lovely road to cycle on. I do not yet know what the present condition of the roadway is that would compel local officials to fear for cyclist's safety. I will update this blog if I can find out more.

Those look to be ten foot lanes in a 30 MPH zone, but the speed limit increases to 50 MPH about a mile up the road.

Hats off to the good Judge Haisler who is obviously putting in extra hours to get the truth out on the record. I am happy to assist him in that noble effort!

A Major Step In Austin!

Congratulations to the City of Austin - on Thursday, October 22, 2009,
Austin became the first city in the State of Texas to adopt a Safe Passing
ordinance! This means that Safe Passing will now be the law of the land in
Austin, TX.

Thanks to the Austin City Council, especially Mayor Lee Leffingwell and
Councilmembers Mike Martinez and Chris Riley, and city staff for working with
BikeTexas to make this a reality.

This is a major step, but it is only the beginning. BikeTexas intends to
work hard to duplicate this success in cities and towns all over the state
before the next legislative session.

So trumpets the Texas Bicycle Coalition. (TBC) With such wonderful successes, TBC is in danger of becoming irrelevant, because what they define as a success looks exactly the same as what went on before!


I know it is fashionable lately to pass laws without reading the actual text of the legislation, but words do matter. The devil, they say, is in the details.

Into the weeds

The city ordinance reads:

PART 1. Section 12-1-35 of the City Code is amended to read:
§ 12-1-35 VULNERABLE ROAD USERS.
In this section, a Vulnerable Road User means:
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, but not limited to, 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.
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 purpose 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 Texas Transportation Code 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 is 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 motor 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) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that at the time of the offense the vulnerable road user was acting in violation of the law.

Well, it could've been worse! They could've repeated every section of the Texas Transportation Code! (TTC) They relented and only repeated some of them.

Even deeper into the weeds- comparing the new to the old

(b)(1) 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.

This is covered in the TTC by Sec. 545.060. (a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic: shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and (2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely. and by Sec. 545.351. (b)(2) An operator shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care.

(b)(2)An operator of a motor vehicle passing a vulnerable road user operating on a highway or street shall: pass the vulnerable road user at a safe distance.

This is amply covered in the TTC this way: Sec. 545.053. (a) An operator passing another vehicle: (1) shall pass to the left of the other vehicle at a safe distance; and (2) may not move back to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the passed vehicle.

(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 is in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.

How is this any different from the TTC? From Sec. 545.152. To turn left at an intersection or into an alley or private road or driveway, an operator shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is in the intersection or in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.

Oh, it changes the word "vehicle" to vulnerable road user. But bicycles ARE vehicles in the TTC, [*] and it is a violation of the TTC to strike pedestrians on the roadway as seen in 545.351. (b)(2) above.

(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 motor vehicle making the right-hand turn.

This provision, besides being overly wordy, is also redundant. Sec. 545.103. An operator may not turn the vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, otherwise turn the vehicle from a direct course, or move right or left on a roadway unless movement can be made safely. The biggest difference is that Austin's law applies exclusively to motor vehicles, but the TTC applies to all vehicles. Is that really a difference that matters?

(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.

I am glad that these behaviors are now prohibited in Austin! But if they were already illegal, why was this language included in the ordinance? Does this give license to pedestrians and roller-skaters to intimidate or harass others? Or are motorists the only citizens in Austin that are restricted from being a bully?

(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.

As before, Sec. 545.351. (b)(2)

What to make of all this

All of these provisions found in the TTC are available to protect cyclists in every city in Texas right now. The question really is, in the light of the above comparisons, why are our advocates spending time, energy and treasure in passing laws that mirror those already present but are not being enforced? Is this really the path to better cycling conditions on Texas roads?

So if the TBC is doing what is obviously not going to do anything meaningful for Texas cyclists, why are they doing it? Who benefits? Aside from TBC doing make-work and calling it a "major step" in order to spice up their fund-raising literature, what have they achieved of lasting benefit for Austin cyclists? I accuse the TBC of doing nothing of substance for those they claim to represent with such useless laws.

We need better advocates.

We need advocates that demand that the traffic laws already on the books be enforced by local police before writing and passing redundant legislation.

We need advocates that demand local district attorneys uphold all of the laws, as is their duty.

We need advocates that demand judges follow the law, as is also their sworn duty.

We need advocates that will work for cyclist's equality under the law. Now that Austin cyclist's ability to recover damages is contingent on their ability to demonstrate they were operating lawfully, (Paragraph h) will the TBC work to have bicycle traffic laws enforced too? Or does the TBC have no more responsibility for their actions once the laws they shepherd through legislative bodies are passed?

We need advocates that are willing to do the hard work of building broad-based and inclusive coalitions to change our social acceptance of inattentive driving. We are all stake-holders in a more civil public road, even if we are automobile drivers only. Besides the obvious economic benefits of fewer wrecks as expressed in property damage, broken bodies and broken lives, there would be more resources available for progress rather than just cleaning up the mess. Car insurance costs would decline. Less treasure and talent used in emergency rooms patching up the injured can mean more resources available for the sick. More faces around the dinner table.

We need bicycle advocates that address the root problem. We need advocates that can dream big dreams. We need advocates who understand that our streets are for people- all the people- and see that making our streets better for all of us make it better for cyclists too.

We need advocates who want to do big things. To make changes that will matter.

The Texas Bicycle Coalition thinks this new ordinance in Austin is a major step.

How pitiful our advocates are!

*The TTC defines a bicycle as: Sec. 541.201. (2) "Bicycle" means a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter.　

This is a subset of the larger category of "vehicle: Sec. 541.201. (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.

Utah's Bleak Finances Are Even Worse Than Previously Thought

What is a state government to do when it is facing revenues that are sixteen percent less than they had projected three months ago- and those projections supposedly factored in the Great Recession we are enduring?

Consider the words from this article:

Salt Lake County's mayor is now asking for a $13.4 million property tax increase, despite nixing a similar proposal from the county council months ago.

Peter Corroon said the county simply can't cut anymore after trimming jobs, wages, 401(k) contributions, open days at county outdoor pools and Sundays at 10 county recreation centers.

"At some point you have to say there are things we won't sacrifice," Corroon told KSL Newsradio in an interview Wednesday. "I said I won't sacrifice public safety and I won't sacrifice programs for our seniors and our children, so that's where we drew the line."

The 2010 budget would provide for the operation of the newly reopened Oxbow Jail and the Salt Lake County Fair.

Corroon said Salt lake County is now "in the eye of the storm" when it comes to the economic downturn. The 2009 county budget was $801 million. The proposed 2010 budget stands at $638 million.

If you were expecting some new bicycle facilities to be built for you in Salt Lake County, do you think they would've survived the one hundred sixty three million dollar budget cut? Yeah, I don't either.

More locally:

Texans continue to spend and buy less, as the state reported a 12.5 percent drop in sales tax revenue in September.
The decrease matches August’s decline, the largest this year.

The state comptroller’s office announced Friday (October 9, 2009) that it collected $1.47 billion in sales tax in September, compared with $1.68 billion in September 2008. The collections are for sales made in August.

Note, Texans enjoy being relieved of any state income tax.

One theme I have noticed in all of the news is a continued mantra that the bottom is in, we will be up and out next year. I believe this is wishful thinking in the face of contrary evidence.

It was reported today that last week alone, there were more than half a million folks who lost their jobs. The four week average of new job losses is more than five hundred thousand pink slips handed out each week.

The government hands out a report today that trumpets the economy grew last quarter, but the internal data shows that disposable personal income decreased in real terms quarter over quarter by 7.4%! That is an enormous swing in purchasing power and not in the right direction.

Other claims of new housing starts and exports in the report seem to be false as corroborating data (Sales at Home Depot and Lowe's, and truck/train freight and port activity show no corresponding improvement.) cannot be found. Swings of twenty percent quarter over quarter seem implausible as well.

The American consumer is in hibernation, and I do not yet see any sign of spring. There is way too much of everything in the economy except for debt.

This elected officials are hearing the siren song of the headlines and subsequently engaging in hopeful denial. They hope that if they can hunker down the revenue stream will improve and they can avoid the painful choices that must be faced. The truth is, they will not be able to to put it off any longer.

Houston is bankrupt. That city is broke. They will never be able to pay all of their obligations. They now have no alternative to bankruptcy court to unload them. Each Houston citizen owes five thousand three hundred thirty eight dollars. For comparison, each California resident owes two thousand five hundred twenty eight dollars each. (Their financial peril is somewhat different, as states have no recourse to bankruptcy court.)

In fact, municipal budgets throughout this country are so strained by pension obligations alone, they may not even be able to fund infrastructure maintenance projects like filling potholes. (Not that anyone would notice a decrease in service!)

So if painting lines on the streets, painting sharrows in the door zone or paving long narrow recreational playgrounds is what you are advocating for, how can you do to remain relevant in this environment?

May I make a few suggestions? Work to make traffic laws equitable for all vehicles on the public way. Get rid of far-to-right laws and discriminatory mandatory bike lane laws. Either repeal mandatory helmet laws or make them mandatory for all who operate any kind of vehicle on the road.

Demand that the laws that already exist be enforced. In Texas, the due care clause of the maximum speed statute. (Sec. 545.351) Enforcement of illegal lane position by motor vehicles. (Sec. 545.060) The safe passing law already on the books. (Sec. 545.053[a][2]) Demand accountability from our police, district attorneys and judges for failing to perform their sworn duty to uphold these laws. And yes, demand enforcement of scofflaw cycling behavior. [*]

In these difficult times, can we do nothing about the daily carnage on our streets? Can we not form coalitions with interested parties to change the general incivility on the roadway? What civic group is so callous as to not be a part of such a movement? What insurance company likes paying so many claims? What medical or religious group would back away from such an effort that would benefit everyone in out community? Don't lobby the legislators, start a media campaign!

Bribe the new cyclists on the streets with gifts like lights or helmets for attending bicycle skills seminars. A skilled newbie is more likely to enjoy cycling and stick with it. More butts on bikes and all that.

Or maybe you have even better ideas! Good, because the old way of asking for special treatment and infrastructure won't advance anything for a while.

* I find it astonishing that so-called advocates think that asking for crackdowns on the most dangerous behaviors on public street by cyclists is bad form. I thought you were the ones who really cared about your constituents well being!

Interactive Blogging II

A note to my readers: This blog entry has nothing to do with cycling. I do not foresee this blog wandering off of the bicycle road (As it were) on a regular basis. We will return to regular programming momentarily.

Where this conversation stands now. Feel free to jump in!

I started it out this way:

I took a walk the other day with my dog, Shawlee, and I came across this unusual sight. In fact, I had walked away from it when I began to wonder about it.

So I turned back and took a few pictures of it.

How did this happen? We had many hunters in the area while dove season was open, and we will have more again for duck season. Perhaps the ejected shotgun shell fell in such a way as to land on the tip of the branch, unnoticed by the distracted hunter. Pure chance.

Could this plant have grown from a sprout with this shotgun shell atop it, raising it ever higher as the plant grew? Pure chance.

What do you, my beloved readers think? What is the most likely scenario what explains how this came to be? My favorite theories presented here, or something altogether different?

Rantwick: "I like your theories much better than mine. Somebody found that rusty casing on the ground and jammed it on the branch just for the heck of it."

SteveA: "Not being a romantic like ChipSeal, my theory is a hunter set it on the branch, meaning to put the spent shell back in his pocket. Distracted, he walked away - and there it will remain until a strong wind blows it off.

Or perhaps it was left there as a sign to us, by the Little Lame Prince, that he's still well."

Big Oak: : "I like the theory of the little seedling growing and lifting the expelled shell - further evidence that human's influence on the landscape is only temporary. But alas, that would not be at all possible since the origin of growth for woody plants would not survive very long being covered up as it is.

Some kid put the shell on the branch. However, this is your blog, and you, and only you, have the right to say which reason is which!"

ChipSeal: "Isn't it interesting that your minds immediately turn to purposeful actions by a sentient being as to having caused this simple phenomenon?

But if we exclude the possibility of a purposeful act, what is the best explanation for this shotgun shell being on the end of a twig?

For such a simple thing, isn't chance a reasonable way to explain how this could have happened?"

BABBLE Trip Report

I have either cleverly waited to see what the other bloggers would say about BABBLE so I could have a unique take on the event, or I have been lazy and slow to get around to it.

It seems I had an earlier start for the event than most of the participants. I rolled out of my rack at four thirty in the morning with the aim of getting on the road at five thirty. I wanted to get to the nearest DART station to board the seven forty nine departure time to be sure I made the connection onto the TRE. Two hours and ten minutes ought to be sufficient to traverse the twenty five mile distance even if most of it would be in the dark.

It has been cloudy at night for the past ten days or so, and I was unsure which phase the moon was in. Alas, no moonlight to speak of. This lack of light led me to my first mishap.

It has been wet in this part of the world, so wet that standing water remains even today after five days of warm nice weather. The area between my doorstep and the driveway is a spongy, muddy mess. There is a "path" that will allow one to traverse it, even at the high water stage without filling ones shoes with water. But it is not a straightforward path. In addition, it was cold that morning, around 55 degrees. (It will be even colder soon, but it has been in the low eighties in the mornings until this month. We are all scrambling around trying to remember what clothing we are comfortable wearing in these temperatures. March seems so long ago...)

Because I don't want to pack my cleats with mud, I wear sneakers to cross the lawn and change into my cycling shoes on the driveway. In a lapse of judgment, I chose to carry my stuff outside without bringing a flashlight. I did not stay on the high ground very well! So it's back to the house to grab a towel to dry my feet before I put on my shoes and socks out on the driveway.

I hit the road late, closer to six than I would've liked. It is so dark I adjust my route on the fly, choosing a longer route, but one that avoids smaller secondary roads. I will be riding faster in the dark than I had planned, and I am worried about potholes.

It is daylight when I reach the Ledbetter DART station, and it is warmer, I am over-dressed. That gets fixed on the way to the TRE connection on the DART train.

On the platform of the TRE, I see four other cyclists boarding the train, and I join them- they look like they know what they are doing. At this point, even Keri has more experience riding the TRE than I do! It turns out this is the first TRE experience for all of us.

I am dismayed to find out that these three fixed gear cyclists are going to Fort Worth to join the BABBLE ride. I have visions of a critical mass style mob. Every one knows the fixed gear crowd is just a bunch of anarchists, right? If there are four of them on my train car, how many more will be showing up via different transportation?

I decide to make the best of it, and put my best foot forward.

This is Eric, who was egregious and generous.

This is Nate on the left and Alicia on the right. Their other companion wished to remain an enigma.

We got along quite well. I would later learn that they are advocates of vehicular cycling! Zounds! As the day progressed, I was very impressed at their bike handling skills and traffic judgment. I would be proud to ride anywhere with any of them. They are accomplished ambassadors for our sport.

The rail car was nearly empty save for the five of us, but all the train stations were crowded with football fans going the other direction.




When we exited the train, there are other cyclists getting off. I don't recognize any of cyclists, but I do recognize Frankenbike!

At the meet-up, we all basically do two things, take pictures and drool. As I look through my photos, I discover to my horror that I have taken picture after picture of the back of peoples heads. I imagine I am taking great photographs like Christopher does. Sigh. Believe it or not, these are the best I have, there are loads more that are even worse!

Once again, Christopher is out of step from the crowd! (He's the chap who's face you can see.) As you can see with this next shot, I am a genius for not getting ANY faces in the picture!



To the right is Richard, and with his back to me is Steve and Frankenbike. By looking at shadows you can see that I positioned the shot perfectly to completely obscure Christopher! Sigh.

Maybe if I move around I will get some faces...





While the adults were drooling, Rose waited patiently for her ride to start. "Giddy-up Daddy!"





Here is Rose and her father Ray, as Rose wonders what it would be like to sit on the trike.






Just around the corner from Colonel's Bicycles there was another football game scheduled, TCU and Colorado. I spotted this pedestrian, who goes by the name of Alexander, and he granted me permission to take his photograph and use his name on-line. Curiously, he is the only one in this post that has given me permission... Lady and Gentlemen, call your lawyers!

As I stopped to get Alexander's photo, the ride continued on without me, which didn't alarm me. there were fifteen of them (Counting Rose) and they were going at a moderate conversational pace. I'd have no difficulty catching up.

I sprinted up to the next signalized intersection I saw them at, and I expected to see them just up the way. No one in sight! So I start off up the street in the overall direction the ride had been heading and put my head on a swivel. How far could they have gone? I didn't tarry for long with Alexander!

Well, it turns out that Colonel's Bicycles was just around the next corner, and looking over my right shoulder I spot them them milling about parking their bikes as proceed through the intersection. So now I am riding away from the group in heavy traffic. (The TCU vs. Colorado game!) So I turn right into the gasoline station on the corner thinking I can cross the street at the other entrance to join them across the street.

There is a solid line of cars queued up for the light, and I realize I will have to go around behind them- even though they are backed up more than halfway up the block- did I mention there was a football game nearby? So I swallow hard and -Steve, Paul, Herman, Keri, I hope you are sitting down!- I ride the wrong way down the sidewalk! (ChipSeal blushes with the memory of it!) I reach the end of the line of cars and pull into the street behind them, and only then realize that there is a median curb there!

So I line up in the left lane intending to make a u-turn at the signal and then ride back to the Bike shop and the group about mid-block. I spot a sign as I am approaching the intersection that prohibits u-turns! Jeepers! Changing plans again on the fly, I execute a left turn (No Steve, I did not signal) proceed down the road to where I can make a safe u-turn so I can get back to the group. A tiny unnoticed drama, and I out myself on-line!




In this photograph, I manage two profiles and one face shot out of six people in the photograph. Really, I am pathetic at this! The ride paused here because the planned route included a very steep downgrade. It didn't seem that it was wise to route fixed gear folks and folks who had rod brakes down such a steep hill. We were all enjoying each others company so much, we hardly seemed to notice the pause.

We continued on down the Trinity multiple use trail (MUP). This was the most uncomfortable part of the ride for me. There were a few of the blind corners that seem to be so common for these sub-standard facilities. I was surprised at how many cyclists bomb down them at top speed. Taking the lane on hwy 287 seems safer to me than this narrow bi-directional MUP.

I had to devote far more attention to where I was positioned on the narrow path and oncoming traffic while on the MUP then when we were on the public streets. Not only is the MUP narrow for bi-directional travel, especially with club cyclists hammering toward each other with closing speeds of more than forty MPH. In many places there is a lip, or drop-off, that presents a "high penalty for failure" risk if one should wander off the edge. On the streets there are rules and far more space. (And perhaps, traveling on public streets is so familiar to me and the MUP unfamiliar, perhaps much of the work of being aware of hazards on the roadway are being performed on a more sub-conscience level for me.) I don't find MUPs relaxing at all.

I did manage to to have a sporadic conversation with Myles on the MUP, and it was good to get to know him.

At the restaurant, we were joined by Chandra at last, and and a few of the group chose to end their participation in the event then. There was plenty of bicycle parking due to a wide raised walkway with railing in front of the building. In spite of bicycles locked two deep along the railing, there was plenty of room for three deep pedestrian traffic. I chose to leave my lock at home, and relied on the generosity of Steve to share his lock. I was not careful to note who else shared with whom, but Steve and I were not the only ones who were sharing locks. This was a generous group indeed!

Inside jokes were shared all day, and finding Chandra's bike locked at the railing generated a memorable one. Steve and I were tempted to go through Chandra's handlebar bag as soon as we noted he did not have his "keep out" sign displayed! And of coarse we poked fun at Rantwick- proving that our group is not limited by geography or even international borders.





Of the many pictures I took in the restaurant, these two are the only ones that are salvageable. In the bottom photo, that is (Right to left) Chandra, Steve, Myles, and Paul. I have six more photos of this end of the table, taken while I held the camera extended over the center of the table at arms length, and ALL of them caught Myles in some sort of head movement that completely blurred his features. I'm sorry Myles, but this is the best of the bunch!

I would like to point out that I had inadvertently caught Steve making the the only blog post that was posted during the event! That is him doing the deed! Some of us are dedicated bloggers, but none of us hold a candle to Steve!

As the meal broke up, Steve offered to give a personal sightseeing tour of downtown DFW, and Candra and I eagerly accepted. We were full on ready to do the tourist thing! So after a bit, as the group made a right on their way to the Water Gardens, the three of us peeled out of the group, surprising Eric, who did a great job of avoiding conflict with me. Thanks for yielding for me Eric!

Now for someone who is a snow skier from Seattle, Steve sure knows plenty about Fort Worth! (I suppose he could've made all his narrative up on the spot!) That was great Steve, thanks!

We met up at the Water Gardens with the remaining remnants of the group, most of whom were making plans to further enjoy Fort Worth. Steve, Chandra and I rode back to the TRE station to head home on the same train, each of us getting off at different stops.

The wind that day was six to eight MPH from the north. Great for me on my way home from Dallas going south, but even more work for Christopher on his trip back to Sanger. Between waiting for connections with DART and a stop for liquid refreshment (Diet soda at a Taco Bell) I rolled onto my driveway just before sundown.

A more dissimilar group would be difficult to arrange. Each of us had a unique expression of the sport of cycling. We were all interested in each others style, without judgment. There were no hidden advocacy agendas. We weren't riding to protest lack of facilities or or the dominance of cars. We came to share time with others who love riding bicycles. To put a face and voice to the bloggers we have in our favorites folder. To see the smile we perceive in the words they post.

We had a lot of common ground before we met, and more now that we have parted.

Each of us knows, in our own unique way, that it is the journey that is as important as the destination. And we find joy in journey.

A journey made sweeter with the companionship of new friends.

What Rantwick Said!

I find it hard to believe that anyone who sees my blog would be unfamiliar with that eclectic Canadian bicycle blogging genius known as Rantwick. His blogs are always a good read, even when he is only talking about automobiles. In fact, he can make not having anything to say interesting!

He once said; "Just give me smooth pavement, and I'll be happy to do the rest regarding my safety and access."

Amen, brother!

Around here, some roads are so bad, local governments go out of their way to deny responsibility for them.

Here is a case in point. Prachyl Road is so poorly maintained, it is now a hodge-podge of nearly interconnected filled in potholes. If you were to remove all of the "fixed" potholes, there would scarcely be any road at all!





The surface here resembles cobblestones, but without the uniformity afforded by them. It is a disgrace to whichever road department that thinks this is an acceptable level of maintenance for the long-suffering taxpayers of Ennis. Ellis county is officially denying any responsibility, and they have even put up a sign to make sure you know!





In the photos above, I took them from the same spot but pointing the camera in the opposite direction.

Operators of automobiles are often annoyed that they are not able to proceed at their desired speed on the main roads. They have told me to use more of the secondary roads to make their trips more pleasant.

The answer, of course is the same as this one posed to the motorists; "why don't you use those secondary roads?" Cyclists prefer the busy main roads for the same reason motorists do.

Secondary roads are not as direct between popular areas as the main roads are.

Secondary roads are poorly maintained, as local governments siphon away dollars dedicated to maintenance for other things.

Secondary roads have more stop signs and uncontrolled intersections and junctions. Often with an extra helping of poor sight lines to boot. They have lower speed limits for a reason.

You want me to ride off of the main roads? Make them more attractive to cyclists then.

I am not asking for special lanes and infrastructure. I am simply asking for better roads. I won't even mind if you use them too!

Gratifying

Last Saturday, while on the way into town, a came upon a Salmon cyclist traveling in the same direction I was traveling.

This fellow fit a common stereotype, which I shall describe, but I really do not know his actual circumstances. He was Hispanic, riding a cruiser style bicycle, and he was wearing street clothes. His seat was properly positioned, and his rear wheel had slight wobble.

Now I ride a high-end fancy racer style bicycle. I wear Lycra bicycle specific clothing. I was wearing a helmet. I should have been a snob and zipped by him without even a glance in his direction. (That's how it is done, isn't it?)

But then all the stereotypes fail.

I shout, but in a pleasant tone; "Hello! You should be riding over here." I point to my side of the street. I am riding about six feet from the curb.

It seems to take a moment for him to understand. I am slowing down and I am slightly ahead of him.

"Over there?" he asks.

"Yes, with traffic, it's safer."

To my surprise, he swings across the street to my side of the street, and he says "Thank you!"

Well!

I have a stop sign, and he is close behind me. I put my foot down to wait for him.

I try again to explain that it is for safety, and to follow the law. I do not know how much of that he understood, he would only say"Over here?" and thank you three or four more times.

So I continued on ahead, paying close attention to demonstrate best practices. I hope he will ride on the correct side of the road long enough to prefer it. If so, it will be better for him and our whole community.

This is the first time in my experience that an appeal to ride correctly was not received with hostility. It was quite a surprise, and gratifying as well.