I am very much in agreement with the negative comments about the bill. The police are not cycling advocates. First and foremost, they are motorists, and worse yet, their ears belong to other motorists, whether at the neighborhood barbecue or the scene of an accident involving a cyclist. You know how the average motorist feels about sharing the road with cyclists. Why would you rely upon the police to interpret a situation involving a cyclist any differently from the average motorist? My advice, don't.
As for the fleeting warm and fuzzy feeling associated with the original bill, I know people work very hard on our behalf to get legislation like this passed, and you have to appreciate that. But, seriously, what are the odds that a cop, following right behind a motorist that violated that law, would be inclined to pull the motorist over. Furthermore, and I'm willing to bet this would become department policy; even if a cyclist were to sustain injuries as the result of a car passing too close, the motorist would not be cited according to that law, but rather, the police would be instructed to leave it up to the courts to decide.
In my own personal experience as a cyclist, whether it's interpreting a law, or interpreting the scene of an accident involving a cyclist, the police are not your friends. Best case, they would be impartial. Do not count on that. As average motorists, and not cycling advocates, it's far more likely they will make some effort to mitigate the fault of the driver and shift it onto the cyclist. Furthermore, if you're ever in an accident involving a car, and it's at all possible, take pictures, and lots of them. Make your case. Same goes if you come upon the scene of an accident involving a cyclist. Take pictures. Do not rely upon the police to accurately document the scene of an accident involving a cyclist. We are a tiny minority and a nuisance. Expect to be treated like second class citizens.
Robert Cipoletti
On March 18, 2019 at 7:15 AM Nathan Berg via Bike-racers <bike-racers@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@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).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 iPhoneAnd 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
Bike-racers mailing list
Bike-racers@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bike-racers
Bike-racers mailing list
Bike-racers@mailman.swcp.com
https://mailman.swcp.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bike-racers