Please veo bill HB971. It is dangerous enough with the cars now it will be more dangerous. We still rank to high in Pedestrian and Bike Deaths and accidents

There is a discussion of this over at Commute Orlando. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/05/call-governor-crist/

Under the best interpretation the mandatory bike lane changes are not good for cyclists and confusing for everybody. However the new wording is not completely clear and could be interpreted by an officer or judge as meaning a bicycle can not leave the bike lane under any circumstances.

The existing keep right statute effectively requires use of the bike lane and already suffers from arbitrary interpretations. The last thing cyclists, motorists or law enforcement officers need is an even less clear statute.

I’m not so sure that the provision in HB 971 was necessarily intended as an “anti-bike” measure, nor that it was (the measure died in the senate) all that bad an idea.

Section 316.003(42) defines “roadway” as that portion of the road normally used for vehicular travel. Florida Statutes do not define “vehicle,” but in Florida bicycles do not “have all the duties and responsibilities of vehicles,” as is true elsewhere, here they ARE vehicles. Thus, it would strongly imply that a Type II facility is part of the roadway, and unless a specific provision is made, is controlled by any general roadway regulation. Currently, the “ride to the right” provision, 316.2065(5), does not contain a bicycle lane exception. Thus, the literal language of the statute (which is what matters, not what the public perceives it to be)mandates that cyclists ride to the right, although there is a bike lane. The proposed legislation disabled that ride to the right requirement, although in fairness to Laura, Magihk and the other commentors, it did indeed substitute a less stringent “ride within the bike lane” requirement, with the exceptions to this “ride within the bike lane” requirement being the same as those contained within the present “ride to the right” requirement.

It also helped clear up the linguistic conflict between the “ride to the right” provision and the two abreast rule by clearly stipulating that two abreast riding is not prohibited if it is carried out within the confines of a bicycle lane. This conflict goes all the way back to 1975, when the California Attorney General issued an opinion as part of that state’s “SCR-247″ bicycle committee report that its right-to-the right statute prohibited any two abreast riding except for brief passing maneuvers. The Cal. bicycle committee wanted to change this to the extent of allowing two abreast riding on bicycle lanes, bike paths, and road shoulders within roadway rights-of-way, and the Cal legislature approved such language, which was later transferred into the UVC and, in altered form, into the Florida code.

The intent of the two abreast rule in Cal. and the NCUTLO was never to waive the ride-to-the-right requirement to the extent of allowing two abreast riding at all times and in all places, just to permit it in bicycle lanes and bicycle paths and bike lanes that were located in road rights of way and were thus thus technically within roadways, but where impeeding traffic was not inherently a consideration.

This news bulletin should be in big bold letters on the main site – this is a SEVERE issue.

-K

http://www.southfloridafixed.com/2010/05/crystal-ruiz-mills-relief-fund.html

Bruce wrote: “Florida bicycles do not “have all the duties and responsibilities of vehicles,” as is true elsewhere…”
.
This is false everywhere. Bicycles, whether defined as devices or vehicles, do not have rights. Only people have rights, so bicyclists and motorists, both vehicle drivers in FL, have rights, but non-living machines do not. In the future, please don’t anthropomorphize machines.

Bruce also wrote: “…the literal language of the statute (which is what matters, not what the public perceives it to be…)

Fair enough, and regarding the assertion that the exceptions to the FTR law, 316.2065(5) apply to a bicycle lane per the wording of HB971; I don’t agree that this is what the construction means. However, if the three exceptions did apply, then this leads to an absurd contradiction, since a bicycle lane is a substandard width lane per exception (3) that is not wide enough for a bicycle and another vehicle to drive side by side within the lane, so the very narrowness of the bike lane means that a bicyclist is not obligated to use it, per the literal reading of the statute.

Though I believe the language construction of the law renders the exceptions as only applying to the FTR restriction, not the use of a bike lane. As I wrote on the Commute Orlando Blog, this is very bad lawcraft and should be vetoed by the Governor.

Also note that a bike lane is a preferential use lane, not a traffic lane, so it is no more reasonable to force cyclists to use bike lanes than it is to force carpoolers to use HOV lanes, or bus drivers to use bus lanes. Preferential use lanes are provided as an optional benefit to the preferred class, and should not be forced upon any preferred class by law.

Dan is correct that 316.2065(1) delegates rights and duties to operators of classes of vehicles, not to the vehicles themselves. The distinction seems to have particular resonance to certain cycling advocates, probably mirroring its emotive appeal to libertarians; to most lawyers the word is no more sacred than the other three universal legal categories of duties, privileges and immunities, and in my prior email I violated one of my own personal pledges to avoid its use because of its imprecision and inherent inability to communicate any truly unique legal concept accurately and concisely, so I deserved what I got.

As far as a bike lane being of substandard width, that just doesn’t fly. Section 316.0745 delegates the configuration of appropriate uniform signals, pavement markings and designs to FDOT and these are issued by rule in the Florida Administrative Code. Both general road geometrics and bicycle facilities have their own design manuals (Greenbooks), and these have been adopted by rule. (By the way, this raises the interesting point of whether “taking the lane” falls within the “narrow lane” exception to the right to the right law only in cases where a road’s geometrics fall below Greenbook standards–i.e. the state, not the cyclist, decides what is “too narrow.”)

In any event, 316.074 requires operator obedience to traffic control devices, so if a traffic control device (bike lane markings) is visible, and some other mild “reasonableness” criteria are met, then cyclist adherence to the bike lane is required. On the other hand, that means relatively little, because the traffic code specifies no operating regulations for any class of vehicle particular to a bike lane.

There are two possible reasonableness interpretations that could be offered: 1) The bike lane is simply part of the right hand lane and means noting special (that is the interpretation the recent legislation sout to avoid) or 2) Lacking statutory guidance, one turns to administrative and interpretive guidance. I would probably, in the absence of clear statutory direction here, turn to the administrative rule, which would be the FDOT bicycle facilities manual. It’s been several years since I’ve read it, but my recollection is that its pretty mainstream in terms of is assumptions regarding cyclist user profiles, the standard A/B/C categories.

In summary because of 316.0745, and the adoption of the bicycle manual as an FDOT rule through the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, the Bicycle Facilities Greenbook is probably the controlling document and would define appropriate operator behavior for determining duty of care (tort) and appropriate obedience to traffic control devices (code or criminal enforcement).

Florida legislature passes law restricting cyclists to non-existent bicycle lanes and rewarding 4-time DUI drunks with full access to our roadways. These golf-cart riding, scotch guzzling neanderthals are doing a staggeringly effective job of protecting motorists from the growing threat of a healthy, eco-friendly and harmless transportation alternative. Bill was originally drafted on a beer-soaked cocktail napkin by some angry country club member who simply could not get the human blood stain off the chrome bumper of his Hummer. Let’s just call this the “Road Kill” bill.

ATTENTION:

For those of you who wish to send an email to Crist expressing your concerns, but do not have the time to draft a letter, you can visit the following site, VETO HB 971, and sign your name to a prepared petition letter. Upon submission, this petition will be sent directly to Governor Crist’s email box:

See: http://vetohb971.x10hosting.com/

^
PLEASE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS – SEND IN YOUR REQUEST TO VETO THIS BILL VIA EMAIL AS WELL!

-Kurt

Hello all,

If you’ve been following the previous posts regarding HB 971, you’ll know that I just started a petition site, http://vetohb971.x10hosting.com/, so that individuals who do not have time to send an email may submit a prepared letter to Governor Crist’s email inbox, asking for a veto.

That said, I have devised the following flyer for distribution to local cyclists and local bike shops. I’m in Miami, I can only take care of a limited area. That’s where you come in:

http://vetohb971.x10hosting.com/vetohb971.doc

If you would like to help in the effort to veto HB 971, feel free to download and print copies of this flyer. File is in Microsoft Word .DOC format. Pass it out to your friends and your local bike shops. Make as many copies as you like. Get the word out.

-Kurt

This is the ultimate in political subterfuge. The people bankrolling these veto “HB 971” sites don’t care about drunk driving. They are hiding behind that issue because the bill ends a monopoly that funnels all the car boot business to one vender, opening up the market to competition.

Don’t be fooled or used. HB 971 makes the road safer by making sure repeat DUI offenders only get behind the wheel of a car with an interlock device, basically a breathalyzer tied to the car’s ignition. This solution is more effective than current law since 50% to 75% of DUI offenders currently drive on a suspended license. That’s why both the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and MADD support this legislation.

I think as a group we are missing the BIG picture of HB 971. While being “forced” to use a bike lane, when present, is demeaning and demoralizing to cyclists, I think that allowing 4 time REPEAT DUI offenders another chance the to potential harm all users of the roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, sidepaths, and MUP’s should be the main focus.

Lest we forget that the so-called “right” to operate a motor vehicle on our roads is actually a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE. By demonstrating not once, but FOUR times, your level of incompetence, then YOU do not deserve such a privilege. And the idiotic comments of “they’ll drive without a license anyway”…Wake up People!…CRIMINALS DO NOT AND WILL NEVER OBEY THE LAW.

So let us allow this bill to pass and reward common, habitual criminals the honor to disgrace themselves for the FIFTH or more time. How long until we realize we voted in the most incompetent, inane thinkers as our representative voice?

Rodney, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. Although it is a crying shame that people get four (or more) DUI’s, revoking a license for life does not necessarily stop people from driving; however, enabling these people to chance to drive with heavy safeguards in place makes it possible for some people to drive legally and therefore safely.
Saying that driving is not a right but a privilege is not correct. It is more of a right than a privilege. Remember that government is accountable to people and it’s a privilege they govern us, not the other way around.

visit http://www.veto971.com for the real story on this bill and call and email Governor Crist and ask him to veto HB 971.

It is a right to WALK around in public as a natural human being. It is a PRIVILEGE to operate a massive, high-speed machine in public because it poses an inherent risk to the life and property of others. That is why you must get PERMISSION from the state to drive (that’s what a license is, getting permission).

State courts have consistently rejected challenges to the states’ abilities to prohibit unworthy individuals from driving motor vehicles.