The League and most bicycle advocacy orgs have taken a dim view of Mandatory Sidepath laws because they often force bicyclists into substandard or unsafe situations and in addition many cops can’t ever see a reason why it is practicable to be in the lane even if the alternative sucks 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2019, at 11:40 AM, Scot Key jscotkey@gmail.com [bikeabq] <bikeabq-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

[Attachment(s) from Scot Key included below]

Here's Sen. White's handwritten amendment, including "to the extent practicable" with all its vagueness. I'm no huge fan of the amendment, more importantly, in my mind, in cases of bike lane debris and other factors that make taking the lane more "practicable." Still, I wouldn't veto the bill. 

Scot

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:35 AM Khalil Spencer <khalil@losalamos.com> wrote:

Does this transform 192 into a mandatory side path law? If so it should be vetoed 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Scot Key jscotkey@gmail.com [bikeabq] <bikeabq-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

I don't think the Governor should veto the bill. I, too, ride "the road" on Tramway and would never use the multi-use path, but for a number of reasons I think the Governor should sign the bill and work instead move forward on a general and specific front. Generally, until the State/NMDOT has a solid Complete Streets statute, with buy-in and implementation from NMDOT, measures like HB 192 are mere band-aids, if that. Specifically, as a State Road, Tramway needs to be re-thought as a, perhaps, unique case although similar to non-State Roads such as Unser Blvd. that have both bike lanes and multi-use paths.

In other words, the shoulder on Tramway (and short stretches of NM-500 Rio Bravo/Dennis Chavez with both shoulder and multi-use path) needs to be designated as a bike lane, including signs/striping for re-entry into the driving lanes at intersections. This latter aspect should have happened years ago, of course.

Sensing my thoughts on this are not shared by the cycling community any more than drivers often wish to "share the road" with cyclists...but am still passing them along here and to the Governor. 

Thanks for listening...

Scot Key

ABQ, NM 

Better Burque

jscotkey@gmail.com

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:04 AM Jennifer Buntz bikefunsafe@gmail.com [bikeabq] <bikeabq-noreply@yahoogroups.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@mailman.swcp.com> wrote:

Right!   Very bad implications 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 16, 2019, at 7:41 AM, John Vance <adogapanicinapagoda@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@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@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@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bike-racers