Editorial Comment
Web Master's note: This was written for a hot-headed letter writer during the heat of the Senate Bill -238 crisis in the winter of 2000-2001. It is still relevant even after that embarrasing legislation died in the Texas Senate. Hopefully we won't be fighting the same fight during the next Legislature.Make My Day, Billy...
by Fred Meredith
I started my day today by opening the following e-mail:
>>>>>>>
You or most of you are a HAZARD!
You come out of the city and saturate our roads demanding the right-of-way . You pay no $60 dollar license fee for your vehicle but demand road space with a 4,000 pound , 60 mph , moving object. Many of you ride abreast, completely blocking the road. Most if not all will not pull over in the ditch. Even country kids are taught that the car has the right-of-way and to stop until the car or truck passes.
When you start putting plates on your bikes, safety stickers,obey
the road rules for weight versus mass then maybe us country folk
will listen to your whining complaints! Keep your hobbies in the
city. We don't bring our animals or tractors to the city demanding
space and new laws. Don't bring your bikes out in the county!
B. Hoglan Native Texan
<<<<<<<<
Since that made my day, I had to respond.
Hi, Billy,
Thanks for your letter. I understand your frustration. I too would like an orderly universe where truth and justice prevail and I am afforded the liberty to travel freely on the streets, roads and highways that I help pay for.
But, I'm afraid we all have a few pieces of misinformation floating around in our knowledge base and I'd like to help you clear up some of yours (as you, I'm sure, were motivated to do for me).
I'm not sure about your definition of "HAZARD!" but if you are implying that it is dangerous out there on the roadway, I tend to agree with you.
For instance, it scares the bejeezus out of me to drive at night on our scenic two-lane country roads. Even if the speed limit were still a modest 55 on those roads, I realize that the headlights coming toward me as I drive my 1997 Ford F150 pick-up truck (the registration was actually $68.00, but you were close) are under the control of a person who:
• may
(or may not) have taken driver training at some point in their life
• may (or may not) have a valid driver's license
•
may (or may not) be well rested and alert
•
may (or may not) be in a good mood
• may (or may not) have a blood alcohol level of below 0.08
• may (or may not) be free of mood altering drugs
• may (or may not) have normal hand/eye coordination skills
• may (or may not) be a person of mature judgment and reason
and the list goes on.
That vehicle and my pickup truck are closing on each other at a combined speed of more than 100 miles/hour and we are each expecting the other to stay on his or her side of that yellow line. All of that without knowing a whit about each other. Yes, that scares me -- when I stop to think about it. So, I agree, the road is full of hazards and our only hope is to enforce the laws which attempt to protect us from those hazards.
When you drive your pickup (I'm just assuming you drive a pickup or maybe an SUV), which do you fear the most, some bicyclists you must pass or a drunk driver (or impatient driver, or immature driver, or sleepy driver, or ...) in the oncoming lane? If you want to come on board to make the roads a safer place, I suggest that you lobby your senator or representative for better enforcement and stronger punishment for drunk driving, for driving without a license, for better education of all road users and I might even suggest for regular physical testing of drivers over a certain age.
Anyway, we were talking about hazards and we know some hazards can't be successfully legislated out of existence. For instance, how about deer and other wild animals, slow farm vehicles, breakdowns and existing accidents in the roadway, etc. It would be hard to make them go away. If you come over that hill or around that curve and cannot stop in time for one of those, whose fault is that Billy? Isn't it yours for driving too damned fast for conditions? Besides, when you admit to being "a 4,000 pound, 60 mph, moving object" on a Farm to Market road, I think I know what the true "HAZARD!" is.
"You come out of the city ..."
No, Billy,
I don't. While many bicyclists (and many motorists as well) on our
FM roads do live in the city, many of us do not. I live on five-acres
of trees, next to a creek near the Travis/Hays county line and can
only see one other house looking in any direction from my place.
In my book, that's still out in the country (for awhile longer anyway).
These FM and RR roads are mine as much as yours. I pay a pretty
good chunk of property taxes and I KNOW that gasoline and road use
taxes don't even put a good-sized dent in the total cost of our
roadway system. We ALL pay for those roads whether we drive a motor
vehicle or not. [That's just an FYI, Billy, you can look it up.]
Yes, I demand some road space. If you get some then I damned sure better get some. I have places to go and work to do also. Sometimes I choose to get there on a bicycle rather than my pickup. AND, we both know that a fair percentage of the time we are on those roads, it's for our own personal satisfaction and not "work" related. I choose to make some of my trips on those roadways by bicycle for the exercise, to reduce air pollution, to experience the feeling of accomplishment, to save natural resources and my money, to reduced noise pollution and damage to the road surface, and for the companionship of riding with friends. I suspect that you also have a variety of reasons for driving on those same roads and they aren't all work related. We both have a right to that roadway and we are obligated by the law to share it.
Who do you think started the "Safe Roads" movement? Who do you think was the first organization to lobby the federal government for standards in road conditions and quality? It was the League of American Wheelmen, a bicyclist organization back in 1880. Motor vehicles were not yet a pimple on the butt of our economy, much less the abused tools and lazy indulgence of a "couch potato" society that they seem to have become today. (Sorry about that, Billy. Since I am all too often a part of that couch potato class, I feel justified in identifying it.)
I am with you, Billy, on one plane for sure. Since we already have laws on the books which should make the sharing of the roadway (even shoulderless FM roads) between motor vehicles and other lawful vehicles a routine accomplishment, I'd like to see those laws enforced.
On two-lane roads (one each way) where the lane is wide enough for a motor vehicle to pass a bicycle without changing lanes, bicyclists should ride single file and as close to the right edge as is practicable in the presence of motor vehicles.
When the lane is too narrow to share with a passing motor vehicle, cyclists should ride OUT IN THE TRAFFIC LANE sufficiently to cause the overtaking motor vehicles to change lanes in passing rather than to try and squeeze by the cyclists and pass at an unsafe distance. In the case of such a narrow lane, it is safer for a group of cyclists to ride two abreast in order to increase their visibility and to discourage attempts to pass without changing lanes.
Bicycles also are not to impede the normal flow of traffic and it can be interpreted (not really spelled out) to mean that very large groups of cyclists should split into smaller groups spaced so that overtaking vehicles have the opportunity to make their passes in smaller increments.
Cyclists who do not make positive efforts to accommodate motor vehicles and share the road are as guilty of endangerment as motorists who endanger cyclists with their attitudes, their road rage, and their unsafe driving practices. The only difference is that cyclists most often endanger themselves (which may be at the heart of faulty attitudes on their part).
By the same token, motorists are obligated to drive at a safe speed -- not necessarily the speed LIMIT, but one at which they can control their vehicle even when coming over hills or around curves. Motorists overtaking other vehicles are obligated to pass at a safe distance and when it is clear to do so without endangering the overtaken vehicle(s) either cars, or bicyclists.
In any case, Billy, that covers any of your arguments that have merit. As for pulling over in the ditch, I've never had to do that in the presence of an intelligent, cooperative and consciencious law-abiding motorist, only in the presence of ill-tempered HAZARDous road raging jerks).
As a "country kid" my first real adventure was on a bicycle when, with two cousins, I set out to ride from Manchaca to Buda and back. It was a long time ago (I'm 59) and FM 1626 was gravel a good bit of the way and Old San Antonio Road was the highway. We went out on one road, through Buda and back on the other. It was part of growing up and the recollection of such adventures brought me back to bicycling as an adult. So don't give me any "country kid" homilies.
Also, Billy, I don't know where you learned the traffic code, but cars don't always have the right-of-way. In fact, right-of-way is not determined by "type" of vehicle except where separate types of facilities interact (crosswalks at intersections, etc.), otherwise it is by vehicle position that right-of-way is determined (vehicles entering roadway yield to those in the roadway, overtaking yields to the overtaken, etc.). Maybe you should get out your driver's manual, Billy. How many years has it been?
I used to have plates on my bike. Still have my Austin bicycle "license" tags and from time to time have even had a safety sticker on my bike. Not my fault that such practices were discontinued. Probably if there were more bikes and fewer motor vehicles there would be the manpower to have licensing and safety inspections for all legal vehicles.
"...obey the road rules for weight versus mass?" What is that all about, Billy? I've never exceeded the weight limitations (per axle or vehicle) on a load-limited bridge or gross weight limits on a roadway, if that's what you mean.
"...maybe us country folks will listen..." Shoot, Billy. Some of us country folks are tired of listening to misinformation and prejudice and just plain mean-spirited complaining (not that you are guilty of any of those things except maybe the first) and we are doing some of the talking.
It's been fun corresponding with you, Billy. You were just joking about the "keep your hobbies in the city" right? I mean, we'd never ask you not to take your hobbies to the city. I'm sure they let rural people into the movie theaters and onto 6th street in Austin and the Paramount Theater and such. I'm sure that you are free to entertain yourself in the city assuming that you don't end up in a gridlock of traffic trying to get there (all those other rural residents trying to get into town at the same time). Wouldn't it be great if about half of them decided to travel by bicycle so you could drive in less congestion?
Anyway, thanks for making my morning for me. It's been a hoot!
Fred Meredith
(The opinions expressed herein are those of Billy and Fred only, and should not be construed to be those of any "real" population of rural people or organization of bicyclists.)
Feel free to pass this in any direction you'd like where it might do some good in the rhetoric department. It may appear in the March Cycling News if there is space to fill.
When in doubt, ride your bike!