BikeSafeSanAntonio

Ride Drive Share Live

This Is Interesting

Watch the videos, then read the text below…

Perceptual blindness, is the problem of not being able to see things that are actually there. This can be the result of a mental focus which cause mental distractions. Even though an observer was looking right at the missed events, their attention was focused on other visual stimuli, or they were otherwise cognitively engaged (i.e., talking on a cell phone). The first step in dealing with perceptual blindness is to understand it and acknowledge that it exists. By doing that, we are able to improve our skills to diminish its effects. This is why it becomes very important to limit your distractions when operating your vehicle. Knowing your limitations is important. Limiting distracting activities while driving/riding enables you to be more focused & aware when on the road. This goes a long way in making our roads safer for everyone.

Something else that can cause problems is having no internal frame of reference to perceive the unseen objects. It is due to how our minds see and process information. This is why more information to drivers about cyclists becomes so very important. The more drivers are reminded that cyclists are riding among them, the easier it becomes for their mind’s eye to see the cyclists. This is part of what was being addressed in the ‘Share The Road’ signage campaign. On one hand, it educates drivers that cyclists have a right to use roads, and it goes a step further by putting a mental picture of a bike fresh in the driver’s mind, making them more likely to notice cyclists when they encounter them.

Change blindness, the inability to perceive features in a visual scene when the observer is not paying attention to those specific details, is another difficult area. That is to say that humans have a limited capacity for attention which limits the amount of information processed at any particular time. This is why lack of vigilance while operating your vehicle will alway produce dangerous outcomes.

We have to be aware of our mental limitations as we engage in a variety of activities. Sitting at home watching a movie doesn’t ‘require’ the same level of attention & focus as driving a multi-ton vehicle on the roads. So it becomes each drivers responsibility to know the mind can only focus on so much data at any given time. Then make adjustments to the incoming data when getting behind the wheel.  Becoming distracted while perusing information on the internet won’t bring about the same negative results as conversing so intently with your ride-partner that you fail to be aware of the traffic conditions around you.  This is another reason single or double line riding is safer.  Constantly & continually maintain your focus on  what is going on around you when you are on your bike to increase your personal safety.

That is why limitations on cell phone usage while operating a vehicle increases safety on the roadways. Eating the fast food ‘in the parking lot’ before pulling out into traffic improves safety conditions on the roads. Not putting on make up, or refraining from reading while driving increases our ability to take in more information as we drive. Not listening to headphones while riding, not ‘zoning out’ while on our bikes enables riders to focus on the ever-changing environment around them.  That increased ability to focus and react to potential problems improves our ability to safely maneuver on the roads, whether driving or riding.

Texting while operating a vehicle brings up an additional problem. Cognitive capture, also known as cognitive tunneling, when the observer is too focused on the instrumentation and not on the whole environment. It takes far too much cognitive focus text-messaging to do anything else. That is what makes texting and operating a vehicle extremely dangerous & reckless. If you’ve ever done it, you know that texting can hyper-focus your mind to the point that your surroundings completely disappear momentarily. As you are driving/riding, too much goes on for you to have those ‘lost’ moments. So the only responsible thing to do is making the decision ‘not’ to text while operating your vehicle.

The last issue to discuss is the phenomenon of SEP, also known as Somebody Else’s Problem. It causes people to ignore matters which are generally important to a group but may not seem specifically important to the individual. When trying to alert the public to the risk of low-probability, high-consequence tragedies such as motor vehicle-cyclist incidences… it may appear to both drivers & cyclists that we are asking them to act on someone else’s problem.

This is where laws being passed & enforced will bring increased results in safer roads. Unfortunately, by bringing consequences for not utilizing care while interacting with others on the roadways, it then makes it everyone’s problem. Doing this increases the vehicle operator’s desire to attend to what they may feel is someone else’s problem, specifically using care & diligence toward other users while on the roadways. 

We are excited about hearing from all of you.  Take a moment to leave a comment about your thoughts on our information…

December 7, 2009 Posted by bikesafesanantonioadmin | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Road Rights – Traffic IN-Justice

This is a reprint of the First of a Two Part Story By Bob Mionske

Broken Ghost Bike Memorial

Susanne Kibler-Hacker, 42, a highly experienced cyclist, is the coordinator for New Hampshire’s ride-to-work days at her office. The morning of October 15, 2009, she was riding her bike to work. She never arrived. She was wearing a reflective fluorescent vest, but a driver still hit her from behind. Kibler-Hacker, who survived the collision, was listed in serious condition at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Although New Hampshire has the best safe passing law in the nation, the driver was not cited for violating that law, or any other. Instead, police issued the driver a warning to exercise due care.

Greg & Alex Bruehler of San Antonio

Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler were no strangers to adversity. On August 25, 2007, they had been driving in San Antonio with their daughter, Kylie and Gregory’s mother when they were hit head-on by a driver who lost control of her truck. Gregory, “Alex,” and Kylie were airlifted to a hospital; his mother did not survive the collision. The police report identified the other driver as erratic. The Bruehler’s fought back against their injuries, through two grueling years of rehabilitation. On October, 1, 2009, their struggle through recovery ended, when another driver lost control of his truck, hitting them from behind while they were riding their tandem outside Helotes, Texas. Alex was killed instantly; Gregory was airlifted to a hospital, where he died an hour later. Their daughter Kylie, age seven, was not riding with them this time, and was orphaned. The heart-wrenching photo of Kylie at the funeral service told the story more eloquently than any words could convey.

Jerome Featherman photo courtesy of The Sahuarita Sun

Jerome Featherman, 84, had been a cyclist for 10 years. He rode regularly, always taking care to wear his reflective vest and helmet, and only riding where there was a bicycle lane. Despite Featherman’s care in taking these precautions, it was not enough. On September 3, 2009, a driver who did not meet his own duty of care entered the bicycle lane, striking Featherman from behind. Featherman, one month shy of his 85th birthday, was killed. The driver, who police determined was not impaired, was fined a total of $254 for the collision that ended Featherman’s life.

Ed Farrar Wenatchee Valley Velo

Dr. Ed Farrar is well-known and widely-loved in the Wenatchee Valley, Washington. He helped found the Wenatchee Valley Velo cycling club, but these days, he is also known as the father of Team Garmin-Slipstream sprinting phenomenon Tyler Farrar. An orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal injuries, Dr. Farrar freely gave of himself to help others. On October 22, 2008, he was on his daily morning ride before work. As he was riding an uphill road in Wenatchee, a security guard driving downhill dropped the clipboard he had apparently been reading onto the floor of his vehicle, and as he reached to retrieve it, veered across the road, hitting Dr. Farrar head on. Dr. Farrar survived, but sustained a serious spinal injury; Dr. Farrar, who helped so many others with spinal cord injuries, is now a paraplegic. The driver who put Dr. Farrar in a wheelchair was fined $250 for negligent driving in the second degree.

David K Dillion

David Dillon was a Lieutenant with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office in Lawrence, Kansas, and an avid cyclist. The morning of June 28, 2008, Dillon was riding just outside of Eudora when a driver hit Dillon from behind; Dillon, 44, was killed. The driver, who had been simultaneously distracted by his radio and his cell phone, was charged with unsafe passing, following too closely, and failure to wear a seat belt.

Tim O'Donnell Portland Velo

It was the noon hour on June 9, 2007. Tim O’Donnell was riding with four other riders from his club, Portland Velo, outside of Portland, Oregon. As the cyclists approached the junction with a road on their left, O’Donnell prepared to turn left. At that moment, a driver who had been following the cyclists accelerated to pass. She hit O’Donnell as he was beginning to turn. O’Donnell, 66, was killed. The driver was fined a total of $1,115 for driving on a suspended license, careless driving, and passing in a no passing zone.

Each of these cyclists, and untold thousands more, had something in common—something besides the bond of their common love of cycling. In each instance, the cyclist was seriously injured or killed by a negligent driver, and in each instance, our system of justice let them down. The negligent drivers who ran them down were charged with minor violations of the law, let off with a warning, or even not charged at all.

“It appeared to be an accident.”

That’s what the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office called the collision that took the lives of Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler. But unwittingly, he was speaking on behalf of the entire indifferent system, in response to each of these collisions, when he excused the driver who killed them with the magic word “accident.” The message, repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of different cases, was clear—if you intentionally harm somebody, we might prosecute you, but if you just happen to be very careless with lethal machinery, and lives are lost, well, who could blame you? It’s just an accident.

Lloyd Clark photo courtesy of ILOG CPLEX Team

And that attitude is emblematic of a widespread misunderstanding of the word “accident.” Many people use the word to mean an event for which nobody is at fault. For example, when cyclist Lloyd Clarke was killed by a negligent driver who violated the law by turning left against Clarke’s right of way, Captain Steve Kelly of the Washoe County Sheriff’s Department said, “It was an unfortunate accident in which no one should be blamed.”

It’s no wonder, then, that many cyclists object to the use of the word “accident” in describing collisions, because they too believe that “accident” means nobody was at fault. So one thing that needs to be cleared up is this mistaken notion. The word “accident” does not mean that nobody was at fault. Except for the occasional Act of God, most “accidents” are the result of at least one person’s negligence; somebody is almost always at fault. “Accident” is actually used as a means to distinguish between collisions that are unintentional (in other words, collisions that are “accidental”) and collisions that are intentional—what we call assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted homicide or even homicide. Nobody—especially nobody in law enforcement or the justice system—should be confusing the unintentional nature of accidental collisions with an absence of fault.

And once we understand that somebody is always at fault in the vast majority of accidents, we can start to question why negligent drivers who injure and kill are rarely, if ever, charged with an offense reflecting the severity of the harm they have caused.

In each of the cases discussed above, and thousands of others just like them, cyclists who were injured or killed by negligent drivers were denied justice. In each case, the reason was different. Sometimes the police themselves decided “it was just an accident,” and either failed to press charges that were available, or refused to press any charges at all. And sometimes, the state was to blame, for failing to enact appropriate laws.

Take the Oregon legislature, for example. There is no vehicular homicide law in Oregon, so when a motorist driving on a suspended license violated the law and killed Tim O’Donnell, there were no appropriate laws available to charge the driver with. And although apologists for negligent drivers are fond of saying “it was just an accident,” it’s no accident that Oregon has no vehicular homicide law. For 30 years—from 1941 until 1971—there was a vehicular homicide law on the books in Oregon. In 1971, the legislature made extensive revisions to the vehicle code, and in the process, eliminated the crime of vehicular homicide. Okay, well, that was the choice the legislature made nearly 30 years ago, but things are different now, right? Wrong. This year, Portland bicycle attorney Ray Thomas worked with Tim O’Donnell’s widow and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance to get a vehicular homicide bill introduced in the legislature. It died in committee. To this day, Oregon’s legislators think “it’s just an unfortunate accident in which no one should be blamed” when a negligent driver violates the law and kills another human being.

Auaumn Growhowski of Lebanon PA

And this is true of the legislatures in most states. In June of 2007, a drunk driver blew through a flashing, closing railroad crossing, killing a 19-year-old woman named Autumn Grohowski, who was riding her bike home on a summer evening. The District Attorney in that case declined to bring vehicular homicide charges against the driver, because the driver was not solely at fault in the crash—Autumn had started her turn onto a bike path prematurely, in order to evade two young men who had been following her. As she was preparing to turn, she was hit and mortally injured by the drunk driver—and under Pennsylvania law, because the District Attorney could not prove that the drunk driver was solely at fault, he could not prosecute the driver for vehicular homicide. In response to Autumn’s story, I received a heartfelt letter from a prosecutor in Texas, which speaks to the problem facing many prosecutors:

As an assistant DA and a cyclist, it is with a heavy heart that I read your article and an equally heavy heart that I must author this comment. The facts of this case are as tragic as they come from beginning to end. I could tell from the beginning where it was going and what the reactions of your readers would be. Unfortunately, the blame for the lack of justice in this case is not falling on the shoulders of those who are to blame.
I promise you all that the assistant DA in Autumn’s case delayed 6 weeks in filing the charges because he was trying to find a way to make the intoxicated manslaughter charge stick. If he is anything like the prosecutors here in Texas, telling Autumn’s family that it wasn’t going to work was one of the hardest things he had ever done … So where should the blame fall?

… First, the legislatures. They have made these cases so hard to prove. We have had a similar case pending here, where the victim was a cyclist from our office, that has been on going for over four years. It has gone through appeal after appeal and gone to jury trial twice. The defendant was finally convicted of the slightly lesser charge of failure to stop and render aid. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove that intoxication was the cause when there are so many other factors when it comes to vehicular offenses and so many similar incidents where alcohol is not even involved.

In most states, the bar has been set so high for prosecutions that anything short of intentionally hitting somebody, driving recklessly, or driving impaired will be shrugged off as an “accident,” worth at most a ticket for a minor violation. And this means that the bar has also been set very, very low for driver competence. The result is there are few, if any, legal consequences for injuring or killing somebody due to negligent driving, even when the injury or death is the result of the negligent driver’s violation of a traffic law.

This near-total failure to hold drivers accountable for their negligence may be due to a common belief that those injured or killed by negligent drivers will find justice in the civil courts. Unfortunately, far too often, the victims of negligence find no justice there either. There are several reasons for this. First, the minimum liability insurance requirements are set so low by the state legislatures that many drivers are “underinsured” for anything more than a minor collision. This means that even if the driver’s insurance company compensates you up to the policy limits, these limits would usually may be inadequate to cover the damages for your injuries in most car-on-bike crashes.

But what about the often-discussed “take the driver’s home and everything he’s got” approach to justice? Have you ever heard the saying, “you can’t get blood from a turnip”? The fact is, most people don’t have significant assets—if they “own” a home, it is in reality the mortgage company’s asset, in which the “homeowner” has some equity. For most people, the next largest asset is their car, which is often owned by the bank. And the returns keep diminishing from there. And even if you wanted to pursue those diminishing returns, the bankruptcy laws will protect at least some of the negligent driver’s assets. And all of that assumes that the driver has insurance, and assets, to begin with. It also assumes that there’s some amount of money that CAN compensate you and your survivors for your loss. Finally, it assumes that you yourself were in no way negligent—an issue the insurance companies are expert at exploiting. The bottom line is that shifting all legal consequences to the civil justice system is just another form of justice denied.

The result of this lack of accountability is that there is no real legal deterrence for negligent driving, and no real justice for the victims of negligent drivers. This lack of legal support for cyclists (and pedestrians) leaves them legally vulnerable on the road, just as they are physically vulnerable on the road. And this legal vulnerability that we place on cyclists undermines all other efforts to promote cycling—a fact the Dutch readily grasped when they established a law that assigns a rebuttable presumption of liability to the driver in any car-on-bike collision.

Comparing cyclist safety in the Netherlands and here, it is clear which society continues to enable negligent drivers who injure and kill. On June 19, 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry vetoed a law that would have required drivers to pass cyclists with a minimum three-foot safe passing distance. Commenting on his veto, Governor Perry said:

“While I am in favor of measures that make our roads safer for everyone, this bill contradicts much of the current statute and places the liability and responsibility on the operator of a motor vehicle when encountering one of these vulnerable road users. In addition, an operator of a motor vehicle is already subject to penalties when he or she is at fault for causing a collision or operating recklessly, whether it is against a ‘vulnerable user’ or not.”

Two months later, as the parents of seven-year-old Kylie Bruehler lay dead on a Texas road, Bexar County Sheriff’s investigators concluded that they would not likely file charges against the driver who ran them down, because it did not appear that he had broken any laws.

It was just an accident.

(Research and drafting provided by Rick Bernardi, J.D.)

November 24, 2009 Posted by bikesafesanantonioadmin | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Gossip of the Cyclers, and Other News of the Wheel

Reprint from the New York Times written by: J. David Goodman

unrestrained demon of the wheel david v herlihy

Unrestrained Demon At The Wheel by David V. Herlhy

Robert Center was speeding down Broadway, his head down over the handlebars, his body curved for minimum wind resistance. His eyes may have strayed from the path in front of him to the road beneath him — for a second, maybe longer — when suddenly and without warning, he slammed headlong into a coal cart and was killed.

His death, in the spring of 1895, sparked a debate about the behavior of cyclists in traffic. Some blamed Mr. Center for riding too fast, and others, including bike advocates like I. B. Potter, the local head of the League of American Wheelmen, accusing the larger, horse-drawn vehicles of dangerous behavior themselves.

It was the height of a great bicycle boom in America. A century before City Room and its Spokes feature, The New York Times followed the debate over “scorchers” like Mr. Center and other local urban cycling news in a regular column known as Gossip of the Cyclers.

the gossip of the cyclers column april 21 1895

Gossip of the Cyclers April 21, 1895

Part racing results, part travel guide, part club bulletin, part tip sheet for local cycling-related politics, Gossip of the Cyclers was a one-stop shop for city riders to bone up on all the news related to “the wheel,” as bikes were commonly known.

From 1894 to 1899, it tracked the growing popularity of cycling in its nascent years, offering a revealing — and often amusing — window into the days when riding on two wheels was as high tech as writing code.

“It was the P.C. of back then,” said Carl Burgwardt, owner and curator of the Pedaling History Bicycle Museum in Buffalo. “That was the topic of the day. The bicycle was the hot thing.”

Some ideas about riding were tested in the column, such as the notion that one would develop “bicycle face” from riding: “the strained, half-despairing look which has come to be regarded as a characteristic of wheelmen.”

Other columns voiced similarly specious health concerns, with particular emphasis on the danger to the lungs posed by arching one’s body for speed, a position the column once called “the monkey hump.” Needless to say, the unnamed Times cycling reporter did not look kindly on drop handlebars, or velocity of any sort.

Such coverage was not limited to The Times, said David V. Herlihy, author of “Bicycle: The History.” Practically every daily newspaper had a column.

The boom, which began with the introduction of the pneumatic tire in Ireland in 1889 and peaked around 1896, reached across the city’s social classes. Despite the hefty price tag for a new bike, around $100 at a time when many only took home that much in a month, a market for used bikes developed as cycling grew more widespread. “It was fairly democratic” in the way it drew people from disparate social classes together, Mr. Herlihy said. “People called it the fraternity of the wheel.”

riding on riveside drive a drawing by w a rogers 1895

Riding On Riverside Drive By W. A. Rogers 1895

“The magnitude of cycling as a pastime is hard to grasp in these end-of-the-century days, when one is told that ‘everyone’ is now a wheelman,” Gossip of the Cyclers reported two weeks before Mr. Center’s accident.

Indeed, as cycling became middle class, The Times took a decidedly middle-of-the-road editorial stance, supporting such things as the free passage of cyclists over the Brooklyn Bridge (there had been a toll) while advocating tougher punishment for “scorchers,” whose behavior elicited vehement denunciations — in the days before blog comments — in letters to the editor. “Have pedestrians any rights in crossing the streets that bicyclists should respect?” asked one angry reader in 1895. (The more things change…)

As is the case today, many of New York’s riders cruised on bikes with no brakes, though this was more from technological limitation than choice. “They were essentially fixed-gear bikes,” Mr. Herlihy said.

Whether brakes should be added even became a source of debate. “The bicyclist brake question seems to have stirred up a great amount of controversy,” the Times column reported in February 1896. (By the end of the year, the column writer noticed that people were coming around to the idea.)

Gossip of the Cyclers was part of a constellation of similar tip sheets for other pursuits. There was Gossip of Horsemen, and a column known as Among the Oarsmen, a rowing feature, and an an earlier, related cycling feature called Among the Wheelmen. Inevitably, the paper began tracking the Gossip of the Automobilists.

Though Gossip of the Cyclers ended at the turn of the century, interest in riding certainly did not. Within a few years, velodrome bike racing would explode in New York.

“The boom was more than a fad,” Mr. Herlihy said. “Of course there was a fad element, when high society started riding around on bikes. But people really did see this as a vehicle to the future.”

Or, as it was expressed in Gossip of the Cyclers in July 1896:

“So many changes have come with the bicycle, and will ensue with the motor carriage, that they are beyond the possibility of prediction and imagination. The revolution is coming, and the sooner the better.”

November 5, 2009 Posted by bikesafesanantonioadmin | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments Yet

Op-Ed – Mayor Joins Cyclists For A Bike Ride

100_9062

By: A. Veronica Petralia – San Antonio’s Ride Like A Girl

On Monday afternoon, several cyclists headed to Main Plaza in downtown San Antonio to ride their bikes with Mayor Julian Castro & Councilman Ray Lopez. The turn out was small due to the time & day they planned to hold the ride. There were maybe 50 cyclists that joined in. Leaders from several local cycling clubs & many avid riders all in their colorful jerseys.

Mayor Castro responded to a question from a reporter asking about how San Antonio could never be bike-friendly, as evidenced by the tragic incident with Greg & Alex Bruehler on Bandera Road just last month.  The mayor quickly responded, saying “Truth be told, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to create a network of bicycle lanes across the city to make it safe everywhere”.

mayor castro croppedSome of it was just plain humorous.  The two hadn’t been on a bike for a while.  SAPD’s bike patrol had to tuck the mayor’s suit pant leg into his sock. (I initially tied my bandana around his pants, but he requested it be removed, the mayor felt that ’pink’ is not his best color.)  SAPD made a valiant attempt at showing the mayor how to put his foot into the cages that were on the pedals.  I suggested they remove the cages as a safety precaution. Spoke with him briefly about how to secure the heel of his dress shoe to the backside of the pedal while riding. He found it amusing, especially when I told him I rode 34 miles on Saturday in high heels.mayorial bike ride 1 cropped

The bike they brought for the mayor to ride didn’t shift well.  I had the pleasure of riding along side him, with hopes of being able to discuss some local biking issues.  Instead talk focused on getting the bike into a lower gear & how to safely maneuver through the traffic, potholes & drainage ditches.   At one point we had to stop, with him jumping off the bike, so we could get it shifted to a harder gear, before the red light changed.

mayorial bike ride 3 cropped

Some of the motorists were in true form, not even paying attention to the SAPD uniformed bike patrol.  Couple of cars came very close to us, prompting the mayor to state more than once that he was beginning to understand the cyclists challenges with the traffic.  We proceeded south on St Mary’s St. to the King Williams area.  At that point the mayor had to get back to his office.  The remainder of the riders continued on to Mission Trails.  I decided I needed to get back to the office, as well.

100_9069

After the ride, Councilman Ray Lopez told press, “It’s a different experience being behind the handlebars than it is being behind the wheel of a car.  It highlights the vulnerability.  It’s something you have to experience to understand”.

While it was great of the mayor to participate in this ride, cyclists of San Antonio need to continue to advocate & work towards being heard.  As evidenced by the lack of cycling experience of both the mayor & councilman, they do not have a good understanding of cyclists needs.  And they don’t need to.  It is up to us to become proactive & involved to help make San Antonio more bike-friendly.

.

.

100_9067100_9071

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.100_9064100_9061

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

November 3, 2009 Posted by veronicapetralia | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Some drivers speak out…

We found this in the Express-News & wanted to share it.  Two random comments from drivers in San Antonio about cyclists:

October 25, 2009 – Want rights? Obey law 
The Oct. 14 E-N reported cyclists are again asking what can be done so all road users can travel safely.The night before, I was driving west on Commerce Street at Alamo. The light turned red. I and two motorists on my left stopped. Along came five bike riders who slowed down, then ran the red light.This can be seen any night of the week, anywhere in the city. They flout the law and then demand respect. Why do they think they are above the law?

Manny Gonzalez

 

 

November 2, 2009 – Cyclists at fault too 
An Oct. 25 letter by Manny Gonzales expressed a viewpoint many motorists have concerning cyclists in this city. However, the letter only mentioned how cyclists run red lights.Cyclists also ride two or three abreast taking up sometimes an entire lane and blocking vehicles behind them. Downtown, they frequently ride through intersections and run red lights with no regard to traffic around them. It’s only a matter of time before one finds himself on the asphalt, dead or in serious condition. Where are the police? Do they observe but ignore these kids?Cyclists must obey the same traffic laws as motorists. Stop publishing comments about how awful we motorists are without also publishing how arrogant and dangerous these two-wheelers are as they ride recklessly on streets and highways.

 Thomas Carlucci

 

This is important information.  It should send a message to all cyclists out there.  As cyclists, we need to obey the law & be courteous & safe while on the road.  For those of us cyclists that do these things already, we need to speak with cyclists that we see or know with these poor practices to ensure we all do this better.

Mr. Gonzalez, please know that not all cyclists feel that they are above the law.  Mr. Carlucci, the majority of cyclists don’t feel all motorists are awful.  There is good & bad on both sides, unfortunately. 

We at BikeSafe San Antonio want you to know  that we hear what you are saying and will continue to work towards educating cyclists about proper riding technique.  It is our hope that we can assist in raising awareness, not only with drivers, but with cyclists themselves, to increase safety on the road for all.

Something we would like drivers to consider is while there are several cyclists that ride in the above mentioned manner, please keep in mind there are many, many cyclists that do it properly.  It is frustrating, as well as dangerous,  as a driver to have to deal with reckless cyclists.  But please don’t let the poor behavior of a few lessen the importance of the many.

November 2, 2009 Posted by bikesafesanantonioadmin | Uncategorized | , , , | 2 Comments

Vetoed bicycle bill is now law — in Austin

This is a reprint of a story that ran October 23, 2009 in the San Antonio Express-News

By Tristan Hallman – Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN — Just more than four months after Gov. Rick Perry vetoed a bill that would’ve required vehicles to maintain a distance of three feet from “vulnerable road users” statewide, the Austin City Council took matters into its own hands, adopting a “safe passage” ordinance designed to protect bicyclists, pedestrians and people in wheelchairs.

The vote was 6-0. The ordinance had been in the works since August. The city previously required vehicles to keep a safe distance from bicyclists but did not specify what a safe distance is.

Violations of the new ordinance are Class C misdemeanors, which carry a fine up to $500.

Robin Stallings, the executive director of BikeTexas, the educational wing of the Texas Bicycle Coalition, said his organization worked closely with city staff on the language of the ordinance at the request of the City Council.

“We’ve done so much vetting on this thing that we’re kind of experts on it,” Stallings said.

The ordinance would be the first of its kind in a major Texas city. Stallings said BikeTexas is working with other cities, but refused to disclose which ones. Stallings did say, however, that he has had cities with fewer than 25,000 people and some with larger populations than Austin contact BikeTexas about creating ordinances.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t 20 cities that have a safe-passing bill soon,” Stallings said.

In San Antonio, staffers from the city’s public works, police and legal departments, as well as the city’s Office of Environmental Policy, are sizing up Austin’s new ordinance. They expect to complete a review in about two weeks and could move it to the city council for consideration, said Laurence Doxsey, the city’s environmental policy director.

Houston is not currently contemplating anything similar.

State law would have required a three-foot cushion had Perry signed SB 488, adopted by the Legislature in its 2009 session. The bill had bipartisan support, passing unanimously in the House, 142-0, and by a Senate vote of 25-6. Austin’s ordinance mirrors the language in the bill.

Perry said he vetoed the law as unnecessary because state laws already protect bicyclists.

Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, an author of the bill along with state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, said in an e-mailed statement that he applauds Austin for taking the initiative on an ordinance but still plans on pursuing a statewide law.

October 23, 2009 Posted by bikesafesanantonioadmin | Uncategorized | , , | 3 Comments