Cyclists in Texas?

dtmeister said:

Have a read of this news report.

http://tinyurl.com/gapsf

Is the officer on crack, or is the statement "Vehicles have the right of
way over cyclists" law in Texas USA? Can anyone comment?

Beaumont.

Actually, there's movement here to get the "three foot law" passed in
Texas. That will be a good day, here and anywhere else for that matter.
--D-y

"dtmeister" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Have a read of this news report.

http://tinyurl.com/gapsf

Is the officer on crack, or is the statement "Vehicles have the right of
way over cyclists" law in Texas USA? Can anyone comment?

--
.dt

In Texax, bicyclists have the rights and duties of other vehicle operators
(551.101); A bicylist moving below the speed of other traffic shall ride as
near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, except when:
....it is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicel to safely travel side
by side (551.103).

http://www.biketexas.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=65

IMO, the truck driver caused a wrongful death through negligence if he did
not pass at a safe distance. The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being when
passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck. To violate a reasonable
standard of care is is negligence if doing so caused harm. The harm caused
was death; therefore, the possibility of negligent homicide comes to mind.
Regardless, the truck driver is vulnerable to civil suit and damages
commensurate to the actuarial value of the cyclist's life.

The cyclist may have been partly at fault if loss of control of the bicycle
was the cyclist's fault; thus, for whatever percentage of fault attributed
to the cyclist, the cyclist owes to the truck driver that percentage of the
total damages suffered by the truck. No damages to the truck, no damages
owed by the dead cyclist.

The truck driver may have been greatly at fault, maybe 100%. Therefore, the
truck driver is responsible for as much as 100% of the damages suffered by
the cyclist.

If the police officer misrepresented the law, as the news story clearly
stated he did, then that's another matter.

My 2 cents.

mC

dtmeister said:

Have a read of this news report.

http://tinyurl.com/gapsf

Is the officer on crack, or is the statement "Vehicles have the right of
way over cyclists" law in Texas USA? Can anyone comment?

The police department can't read in Beaumont thus the problem.

I lived in Texas (Dallas) in the late 70s. At the time it was legally to drive
with an open alcohol container in your car. Also if you caught your wife in
bed with another man so long as you killed both of them it wasn't a crime.
So why not let 18-wheelers run over cyclists?

It sucks and the cop and Police Dept. are clearly wrong and should retract
their statement. But don't hold your breath.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Have a read of this news report.

http://tinyurl.com/gapsf

Is the officer on crack, or is the statement "Vehicles have the right of
way over cyclists" law in Texas USA? Can anyone comment?

--
.dt

On 09 Jun 2006 00:57:50 GMT, dtmeister <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Have a read of this news report.

http://tinyurl.com/gapsf

Is the officer on crack, or is the statement "Vehicles have the right of
way over cyclists" law in Texas USA? Can anyone comment?

Dear DT,

In Colorado, the officers take care of such things themselves.

Carl Fogel

Officer avoids jail in bicyclist's death
By TRACY HARMON
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
CANON CITY - A 34-year old Canon City police officer who was found
guilty in January of careless driving causing the death of a
69-year-old California bicyclist will avoid jail if his driving record
remains clean during a two year probation sentence.

Doug Havens, a rural Westcliffe resident, was found innocent of
speeding; but guilty of misdemeanor careless driving causing death.
Havens was off-duty June 24 as he was driving his pickup truck north
on Colorado 67 when he hit bicyclist William Bliss of San Jose,
Calif., who died at the scene of the accident.

Judge William Fox said he did not feel jail would be appropriate for
Havens following a lengthy sentencing hearing Monday.

"There will be jail if there is a violation of probation," Fox said.
"This was a tragic accident that has caused pain for the Bliss family
and the Havens family and I wish I could fix that."

"I am not happy," said Bonnie Bliss, wife of the victim, after Fox
pronounced sentence.

The sentence will include $2,400 in court costs which includes a
$1,000 charitable donation to Bicycle Colorado, 200 hours of public
service and a traffic safety class.

Mrs. Bliss gave a heartfelt statement about her husband who was a
pioneer in bicycle safety. She showed the court pictures of her
husband and some of his inventions.

When she arrived in Fremont County Sunday, Mrs. Bliss said she was
distressed to visit the place where he husband was killed and see that
a roadside memorial sign had been removed.

"It was there to remind drivers to be careful and it was wiped away.
The anniversary of his death is coming up this month and this has been
the last straw," Mrs. Bliss said.

Mrs. Bliss said she suffered as she continued to get post cards from
her husband for three days after his death. She also went through
stress because her husband's ashes were lost in shipment from Colorado
and took three weeks to arrive in California.

Mrs. Bliss said she felt the community is biased for Havens and that
he does not accept his role in her husband's death. Havens, who has
eight years law enforcement experience, said he expected he may have
to take someone's life some day but he was not prepared for an
accident.

"This has been very hard and I want to tell Mrs. Bliss that I am truly
sorry. I'm living in hell right now - to know a life was taken by me -
it is so unbearable for me to come to terms with that," Havens said.

Havens said he is in counseling to help him deal with the trauma of
the accident, does not sleep more than four hours a night and his
marriage nearly ended in divorce because of the accident. Havens will
return to court Oct. 16 for a restitution hearing.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1149575019/18

Quoted message said:

In Colorado, the officers take care of such things themselves.

<snip>

How sad. We have our own sorry version of this here in .au

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=105742

MykalCrooks wrote (snipped):

Quoted message said:

The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being when
passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck. To violate a reasonable
standard of care is is negligence if doing so caused harm. The harm caused
was death; therefore, the possibility of negligent homicide comes to mind.
Regardless, the truck driver is vulnerable to civil suit and damages
commensurate to the actuarial value of the cyclist's life.

(Snip)

Quoted message said:

My 2 cents.

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law. That would have effect before, so to speak, any
of the mumbo-jumbo about contributory negligence or assumed risk or
other [censored] that is used to excuse drivers who carelessly or
purposefully hit cyclists. It's a long jump up the food chain. The "I
didn't see him" excuse rendered useless? O Happy Day!

Oh yeah-- here in Texas, a judgement (say, a civil suit going in your
favor) is a nice wall hanging, once framed, and little else. "Sue me,
ha ha!" --D-y

Quoted message said:

MykalCrooks wrote (snipped):

Quoted message said:

The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being when
passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck. To violate a reasonable
standard of care is is negligence if doing so caused harm. The harm caused
was death; therefore, the possibility of negligent homicide comes to mind.
Regardless, the truck driver is vulnerable to civil suit and damages
commensurate to the actuarial value of the cyclist's life.

(Snip)

Quoted message said:

My 2 cents.

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law. That would have effect before, so to speak, any
of the mumbo-jumbo about contributory negligence or assumed risk or
other [censored] that is used to excuse drivers who carelessly or
purposefully hit cyclists. It's a long jump up the food chain. The "I
didn't see him" excuse rendered useless? O Happy Day!

Oh yeah-- here in Texas, a judgement (say, a civil suit going in your
favor) is a nice wall hanging, once framed, and little else. "Sue me,
ha ha!" --D-y

Dear D.,

In Colorado, we scorned the 3-foot law, since it would have
inconvenienced trucks.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MykalCrooks wrote (snipped):

Quoted message said:

The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck. To violate a reasonable
standard of care is is negligence if doing so caused harm. The harm

caused

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was death; therefore, the possibility of negligent homicide comes to

mind.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regardless, the truck driver is vulnerable to civil suit and damages
commensurate to the actuarial value of the cyclist's life.

(Snip)

Quoted message said:

My 2 cents.

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law. That would have effect before, so to speak, any
of the mumbo-jumbo about contributory negligence or assumed risk or
other [censored] that is used to excuse drivers who carelessly or
purposefully hit cyclists. It's a long jump up the food chain. The "I
didn't see him" excuse rendered useless? O Happy Day!

Oh yeah-- here in Texas, a judgement (say, a civil suit going in your
favor) is a nice wall hanging, once framed, and little else. "Sue me,
ha ha!" --D-y

Point is well taken. Texans as a group now being world renowned for
homicidal behavior, it seems unlikely that a mere civil suit would win any
justice against a govenment-sanctioned killing there.

mC

Quoted message said:

In Colorado, we scorned the 3-foot law, since it would have
inconvenienced trucks.

Yes, Mr. C, and even more often than gooey lycra colors in tire treads.
But as we go round and round, so to speak, the very reason the 3-footer
is a really really big deal. I'm told some six or seven states have
awakened (cyclist = human!!!) and adopted some form of the rule.
Repeating, "O Happy Day (hit a cyclist and you're in trouble)" --D-y

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

MykalCrooks wrote (snipped):

Quoted message said:

The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being when
passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck. To violate a reasonable
standard of care is is negligence if doing so caused harm. The harm caused
was death; therefore, the possibility of negligent homicide comes to mind.
Regardless, the truck driver is vulnerable to civil suit and damages
commensurate to the actuarial value of the cyclist's life.

(Snip)

Quoted message said:

My 2 cents.

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law. That would have effect before, so to speak, any
of the mumbo-jumbo about contributory negligence or assumed risk or
other [censored] that is used to excuse drivers who carelessly or
purposefully hit cyclists. It's a long jump up the food chain. The "I
didn't see him" excuse rendered useless? O Happy Day!

Oh yeah-- here in Texas, a judgement (say, a civil suit going in your
favor) is a nice wall hanging, once framed, and little else. "Sue me,
ha ha!" --D-y

Dear D.,

In Colorado, we scorned the 3-foot law, since it would have
inconvenienced trucks.

I believe the 3-foot (1 meter) law is in effect in Germany. When I
suggested to our local (Boston) advocacy group that they/we lobby for
something similar I was dismissed out of hand (for being impractical).
They also didn't understand why I have a problem with no-hands riding
being illegal in our state. They have been lobbying to get cyclist
moving violation fines raised (from $20 to $50) -- that is, fines for
cyclists. They wanted to know why I let my membership lapse.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In Colorado, we scorned the 3-foot law, since it would have
inconvenienced trucks.

Yes, Mr. C, and even more often than gooey lycra colors in tire treads.
But as we go round and round, so to speak, the very reason the 3-footer
is a really really big deal. I'm told some six or seven states have
awakened (cyclist = human!!!) and adopted some form of the rule.
Repeating, "O Happy Day (hit a cyclist and you're in trouble)" --D-y

Of course, with a legislature that only meets every other year (except
for "special" sessions) which seems to think that it's more important
to make sure their business buddies are protected than to address
anything that just caters to a ragtag bunch of no-counts, I don't hold
a lot of hope for the progress of the 3-foot rule through the next
session.

Nevertheless, I'll be writing to my legislators, and dropping in on
one of them in person at least once.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

MykalCrooks said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Oh yeah-- here in Texas, a judgement (say, a civil suit going in your
favor) is a nice wall hanging, once framed, and little else. "Sue me,
ha ha!" --D-y

Point is well taken. Texans as a group now being world renowned for
homicidal behavior, it seems unlikely that a mere civil suit would win any
justice against a govenment-sanctioned killing there.

I believe that Dusty was referring to the near impossibility of
getting a Texas state court judge to enforce an existing award via
asset siezure if the only asset that the defendant is know to possess
is one car. There is no provision for garnishment of wages, for
instance. In the case of the incident under discussion, unless the
trucking company itself can be found to have been culpable, they're
probably looking at trying to recover from a local delivery driver who
is effectively assetless. A good lawyer would go after the trucking
company, though, and would stand a good chance of winning IME. It's
*much* easier to collect against a business entity than a low-asset
individual.

Beaumont and its environs, most particularly Vidor, is an excellent
place to simply avoid. Those who are trapped there must make do as
best they can.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Quoted message said:

MykalCrooks wrote (snipped):

Quoted message said:

The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being when
passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck. To violate a reasonable
standard of care is is negligence if doing so caused harm. The harm caused
was death; therefore, the possibility of negligent homicide comes to mind.
Regardless, the truck driver is vulnerable to civil suit and damages
commensurate to the actuarial value of the cyclist's life.

(Snip)

Quoted message said:

My 2 cents.

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law.

So it's OK to hit a cyclist without the 3 foot law :-)? I thought
hitting a cyclist was a violation of the law.

Wayne

MykalCrooks said:

"dtmeister" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Have a read of this news report.

http://tinyurl.com/gapsf

Is the officer on crack, or is the statement "Vehicles have the right of
way over cyclists" law in Texas USA? Can anyone comment?

--
.dt

In Texax, bicyclists have the rights and duties of other vehicle operators
(551.101); A bicylist moving below the speed of other traffic shall ride as
near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, except when:
...it is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicel to safely travel side
by side (551.103).

This is merely discrimination against bicyclists for the convenience of
motorists. However, it seems to me a bicyclist can decide what
constitutes too narrow and can use as much of a marked lane as they want
anytime they want.

Quoted message said:

http://www.biketexas.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=65

IMO, the truck driver caused a wrongful death through negligence if he did
not pass at a safe distance. The 3-foot rule need not be codified; it's a
reasonable standard of care to provide that much room to a human being when
passing a human being with a 40,000 pound truck.

I agree. 3 feet is reach out and touch distance. Most motorists pass
with much more space on most free flowing roads, proving a larger
distance is the reasonable norm, although that may not be true in
congested inner city places such as NYC. Further, the 3 foot rule says
nothing of passing speed differential.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Quoted message said:

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law.

So it's OK to hit a cyclist without the 3 foot law :-)? I thought
hitting a cyclist was a violation of the law.

The 3-foot law takes away the "the cyclist swerved a foot to the left
into my path" defense. Presumably, if you're allowing three feet of
clearance, there's not much a cyclist will do to be ABLE to get in the
way of a driver.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Wayne Pein said:

Quoted message said:

As explained to me, the 3-foot law would make hitting a cyclist a
violation of the law.

So it's OK to hit a cyclist without the 3 foot law :-)? I thought
hitting a cyclist was a violation of the law.

The 3-foot law takes away the "the cyclist swerved a foot to the left
into my path" defense. Presumably, if you're allowing three feet of
clearance, there's not much a cyclist will do to be ABLE to get in the
way of a driver.

That is reasonable reasoning given such a law. However, such a law
essentially condones the passing of bicyclists within what is the
bicyclist's lane. Motorists do it now, and most of the time it is OK
with bicyclists (but not when the bicyclist is struck). But, as far as I
know passing within the lane is one of those "Don't ask don't tell kind
of things."

Better would be a law saying something like "If you pass a bicyclist
without fully changing lanes and strike the bicyclist you are guilty."
Obviously, a motorist can only strike a bicyclist if the motorist has
first chosen to not fully change lanes. Change lanes, like when passing
every other vehicle, and there is not chance of collision. If you choose
to pass within the lane, you assume risk.

Wayne

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MykalCrooks said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Oh yeah-- here in Texas, a judgement (say, a civil suit going in your
favor) is a nice wall hanging, once framed, and little else. "Sue me,
ha ha!" --D-y

Point is well taken. Texans as a group now being world renowned for
homicidal behavior, it seems unlikely that a mere civil suit would win

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

justice against a govenment-sanctioned killing there.

I believe that Dusty was referring to the near impossibility of
getting a Texas state court judge to enforce an existing award via
asset siezure if the only asset that the defendant is know to possess
is one car...

My understanding of the case covered by the OP, is that the defendant is a
trucking company. Therefore, the defendent is *known* to possess millions in
liability insurance and forfeitable assets.

mC

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:33:11 GMT in rec.bicycles.tech,

MykalCrooks said:

Point is well taken. Texans as a group now being world renowned for
homicidal behavior, it seems unlikely that a mere civil suit would win any
justice against a govenment-sanctioned killing there.

the texan courts, where judges are elected with "campaign
contributions" from lawyers, rival some 3rd world countries for
corruption.

if you hire the lawyer that made the largest contribution to the
judge, you might possibly win.