[NMCycling] Fwd: HB 192 (5-Feet To Pass Bicycles) Final Vote Help

Mon Mar 18 09:20:48 MDT 2019

I'm a bit less concerned with law enforcement putting too much energy
ticketing cyclists not riding on bike paths - which I don't doubt one bit
would become an annoying reality - than I am with creating a legal pretext
for aggressive drivers harassing us on any road they think they see some
path or sidewalk we "should" be riding on.   And more seriously, if anybody
gets wacked riding on road that has a legally directed alternative path the
cyclist isn't in - creating a lawful basis to neutralize any driver
liability nor culpability; and perhaps even to put the cyclists insurance
coverage at risk.

Worth a strong push to stop as enacted now, regroup, and push original bill
in future legislative sessions.

Neil McC

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:17 AM Nathan Berg via Bike-racers <
bike-racers at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

> I emailed the governor to encourage her to veto the bill.   This went from
> a warm fuzzy that would have never been enforced by law enforcement to a
> trojan horse that gives law enforcement the authority to interpret however
> they wish with little to no recourse for the affected community.
> It's bullshit.  Shame on senator Wirth.
> Nate
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019, 10:02 AM Jennifer Buntz via Bike-racers <
> bike-racers at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>> We can't know how the wording of the amendment WILL be interpreted, and
>> therein lies the problem, in my opinion anyway.  I used the link below to
>> contact the Governor, and sent the message you can read if you're interested
>> (see below).
>>
>> https://www.governor.state.nm.us/contact-the-governor/
>>
>> Happy riding everyone,
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Governor Lujan Grisham,
>>
>> Please consider vetoing HB192, the 5 fee to pass bicycles bill. The bill
>> was given a last minute amendment before it went to the Senate Floor, which
>> I believe transformed the bill from one that was positive for bicyclists
>> into one that could have very negative, if unintended, consequences for
>> cyclists.
>>
>> The amendment puts cyclists right to use roadways into an ill defined
>> space that is not where the State should go with regard to supporting
>> alternative forms of transportation.  The amendment states that "To the
>> extent practicable, a person shall not operate a bicycle within a vehicle
>> lane if a separate posted or painted bicycle lane or pathway is provided
>> within or adjacent to the roadway."  It is the use of the word
>> "practicable" and its ambiguity that is objectionable to cyclists who
>> routinely use roadways.
>>
>> Take the example of Tramway Boulevard in Albuquerque.  The
>> north-south portion of Tramway Boulevard has a path adjacent to the
>> roadway, the Tramway Recreation Trail.   While this is a fine path, it
>> is not a path dedicated to the use of bicycles.  Many different users can
>> be found enjoying the Tramway Recreation Trail.  Due to the variety of
>> users, many cyclists, myself included, prefer to ride on the shoulder of
>> Tramway Boulevard.  This choice allows groups of cyclists to ride together,
>> and more importantly, avoids conflict with the walkers, runners, children,
>> dogs, rollerbladers, and slower cyclists who choose the Tramway Recreation
>> Trail.  Riding the shoulder makes this route much more expedient if you are
>> a bicycle commuter too.  The amendment to HB192 puts this *choice* in
>> jeopardy, taking it out of the hands of cyclists and leaving it up to the
>> discretion of law enforcement and judges.  It is also likely to add to
>> motorist/cyclist conflict.
>>
>> I was very disappointed that Senator Wirth and Representative Rubio
>> allowed the bill to advance to the Senate Floor with this amendment.
>> Please do not let this bill become law.  The benefit of the 5 feet to pass
>> component is not worth the difficulties that the amendment creates.
>> Cyclists already face many barriers.  I urge you to veto this bill so that
>> another barrier is not added.
>>
>> I had the pleasure of meeting you twice when you were our US
>> Representative.  I traveled to Washington D. C. during the League of
>> American Bicyclists annual Washington lobbying week.  It was great to meet
>> you and I appreciated your support for transportation bills that supported
>> cycling.  I am also one of the people from Duke City Wheelmen who places
>> ghost bikes for cyclists who die while cycling.
>>
>> My objection to this amendment comes from years of advocacy work for
>> safer cycling.  I would welcome the opportunity to speak with someone in
>> your office about this matter, and to delve deeper into how New Mexico can
>> be made a better place for cyclists as well as other forms of alternative
>> transportation.  Cycling in New Mexico really should be supported as a form
>> of recreation and as a health promoting activity too.
>>
>> Although this HB192 might look good at first glance, I do not believe it
>> supports or promotes safer conditions for bicyclists in New Mexico.  Thank
>> you for considering this opinion.  Please contact me if you have any
>> questions.
>>
>> With highest regards,
>> Jennifer Buntz
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 9:06 AM Neil McCasland via Bike-racers <
>> bike-racers at mailman.swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Right!   Very bad implications
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2019, at 7:41 AM, John Vance <adogapanicinapagoda at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And now if they hit you, you'll be presumed at fault because you by law
>>> shouldn't have been on that road.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 8:35 AM Neil McCasland <neilmcc79 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I fear strengthening bad, aggressive, behavior by some drivers if they
>>>> believe now a law says a cyclist shouldn’t be on “their” road
>>>>
>>>> Neil McC
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 16, 2019, at 7:23 AM, dogunter <dogunter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > The amended bill has already passed the house and will be sent along
>>>> to the governor for signing. The discussion is moot at this point.
>>>> > David Gunter
>>>> > Santa Fe, NM
>>>> >
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bike-racers mailing list
>>> Bike-racers at mailman.swcp.com
>>> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bike-racers
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bike-racers mailing list
>> Bike-racers at mailman.swcp.com
>> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bike-racers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bike-racers mailing list
> Bike-racers at mailman.swcp.com
> https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bike-racers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/bike-racers/attachments/20190318/4c57d076/attachment.html>