HB 1007 and SB 1171

There is a new bill, HB1007 (and it's cousin, SB1171), ready to hit the floor in both the House and Senate chambers at the Tennessee State Capitol this week. This much-needed piece of legislation in front of the 107th General Assembly will finally begin to address more stringent penalties for folks who wish to drive their fossil-fuel fortresses with a haughty sense of impunity for the laws of highway safety followed by the rest of the state's motoring society.

To the untrained eye, this action may appear almost as an inconspicuous afterthought to more pressing matters in front of this assembly; issues such as health, education, or fiscal propriety. It is merely an amendment to several sections of existing law found in Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) Title 55, Chapter 8. But the strength it potentially brings to the entire Act should be heeded by every motorist in the state.

As introduced, [it] broadens [the] requirement that drivers exercise due care to apply to bicyclists; enhances penalty for certain traffic violations that cause serious bodily injury or death.

One might be tempted to view the cycling community's endorsement of these bills as a bit self-serving. That is true, but only to a small degree. While it is encouraging to finally begin seeing some respect towards a cyclist's right to safe transit on the state's roadways, let us not forget one thing: Cyclists have always had the right to the road. But we have rarely had the respect of those rights by the law enforcement and justice communities.

This despite numerous incidents, cited in writing, that have rendered an untold number of cyclists battered and bruised; sometimes maimed and killed. As well, the clock would expire if you placed a year-long timer on someone to start counting the number of incidents that have gone unreported because cyclists have simply thrown up their hands in disgust with the justice system. When you throw in the numbers where a few Patrolman Billy Bob Bierbali's have refused to cite drivers, either due to ignorance of, or outright disdain for the law, those annual tallies might outnumber the straightline distance in miles from Memphis to Bristol . . . multiple times over.

This bill should go a long way toward changing the attitudes of policing agents and the honored folks who don the judicial robes in our state. But had these two bastions of public safety and welfare been doing their jobs to a greater degree of excellence, or perhaps without being bought off by cash-flashing perpetrators, we would not need to start seeing the word bicyclist in black and white legalese.

But take a wee closer look, my friends. This language does not only apply to a motorist's diligence in protecting the backsides of the Spandex Saddle Sodalists (though some more often refer to us as Sadists, and a few, quite unkindly I might add, consider us to be Spawns of Satan).

It says . . . no wait, why don't you take a click and read it for yourself.

And after you have seen just how far-reaching it goes to apply to everyone, so that more folks than a few cyclists may benefit, just remember to thank, rather than spank (as in with your front bumper), one of us for being on the frontlines of helping everyone have a safer experience on the roadways of Tennessee.

Happy Trails . . .

Completing the Streets: A Simple Discourse

As gasoline prices continue to soar, Americans are beginning to feel the pinch enough to desire an understanding of the intricate nuances of multi-modal transportation options. One of the key concepts emerging at all levels across the nation is called Complete Streets.

Two simple words that on their own merit are innocuous:

Complete, having all necessary parts, elements, or steps.

Streets, thoroughfares, especially in a city, town, or village that are wider than an alley or lane and that usually include sidewalks.

However, paired together and people, especially folks who do not have engineering or planning backgrounds, begin to sweat. The heart rate soars, the throat becomes scratchy, the breath comes in short gasps. I know that first-hand. As a bicyclist who wants the rights of the road extended to me (and my breathren) I am in favor of policies that incorporate safe passage. But, the idea was daunting. After all, if it is a concept germinating in minds of educated people with far more time to consider it constituents parts, it has to be more complex than this dumb old country boy bicyclist can comprehend, right?

Not exactly . . .

The paradox stems from the fear being both easy and hard to see. It's easy to envision because any time talk starts about infrastruture changes in the road building and maintenance theatre, John Q. and Joan X. Public sees gargantuan dollar amounts and massive interruptions on the horizon, although usually in the opposite order. "Why are we doing this project?" questions first arise after the couple, and many more like them, begin falling prey to the traffic delays that seem to occur primarily when they are behind the wheel in the project area. If John and Joan are of the fiscal mindset, they will soon discover the project is costing tax dollars they fork over. If they cannot see where the project benefits them, and immediately I might add, they begin to voice objections.

Conversely, the fear is diffcult to understand because the idea is so simple, sometimes not as costly as one might think, and extremely beneficial in both the short- and long-term. The only groups who seemingly do not benefit from a Complete Streets initiative are the auto and fossil fuel industries and the associated child enterprises. I say seemingly because only the most myopic proponents of these transportation resource gluttons do not consider how all transportation components can operate more efficiently if all are allowed, and encouraged, to operate together.

In short, there will be better resource climates for all when all are allowed to operate in the same comparative climate. It is often, though, a tough battle to fend off the more powerful commercial sectors whose real catalyst is GREED.

The National Complete Streets Coalition is the place to find a greater understanding of the concept. But it is basically summed up as the official mandate to plan and engineer streets to include all facets of multi-modal transportation options within the body governed by the proposed area. That is, the federal government can have a policy, but the states don't have to follow it on their 'private' roads. Likewise, a state can enact a policy, but a city doesn't need to adhere to it on roads they govern.

One of the most misunderstand precepts is that the policy will be the same at all levels. That is a false idea, but highly favored as propaganda by the Bastardians of Avaritia set. Even within cities of a like size, whether or not they are in the same state, the policy should be what all people in that area need to see as viable transportation options.

1. Complete Streets all begins with a vision . . . and a vision should be the property of the people, not the select few.
   

2. Complete Streets specifies that a road covered by the policy includes all users. That means pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
   

   (Sadly for operators of single-digit horsepower riding mowers who insist on taking their prized vehicle down to the local Bubba's Beers and Butts for noxious refills, it does not include you.)
   

3. Complete Streets covers all road projects, including new and retrofit projects, provisioning for design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way.
   

4. Complete Streets does not say that a body must do these things today, in an otherwise tight public funds fiscal landscape (Again, be mindful that the B of A lobbyists will be shouting this falsehood from rooftops . . . and probably FOX News). It just says that when things are done, they must be done with all users in mind.
   

So the next time you hear the term Complete Streets being considered in your community, county, state, or even the nation, perk up your ears and get involved with the process. And even if you do not believe the action or idea benefits you today, think ahead to the future: It might benefit your children and grandchildren.

Resolving Conflict

If you come at me with your fists doubled, I think I can promise you that mine will double as fast as yours; but if you come to me and say, ‘Let us sit down and take counsel together, and, if we differ from each other, understand why it is that we differ, just what the points at issue are’, we will presently find that we are not so far apart after all, that the points on which we differ are few and the points on which we agree are many, and that if we only have the patience and the candor and the desire to get together, we will get together.

Carnegie, Dale How to Win Friends & Influence People. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1936.

President Woodrow Wilson first uttered this sage advice nearly a hunfred tears ago. It sums up a logical equation to resolving conflict in any walk of life. Since first reading the words while in my thirties, they have had a profound effect on my thoughts any time I ponder conflict resolution opportunities. For example, in the war brewing between Cyclist Nation and Non-Cyclists, I see it as yielding important lessons—for both sides.

(By the way, President Wilson was an avid bicycler.)

First, let’s consider the basic question: Why are Cyclists allowed to ride on any roadways not categorized as limited access, regardless of whether a non-cyclist deems the road safe?

We are allowed to do so in Tennessee because of a state law, TCA 55-8-172 (also known as The Bicycle Protection Act of 2007), which says we have that right; a freedom as unalienable to us as owning a firearm is for another person. Although that law does not guarantee that non-state roads cannot be restricted, often enough public outcries by cyclists sway and defeat any action by local lawmakers to establish such archaic and backwards into the policy fabric of their charge.

But why must there be two warring sides to the equation? As the late Rodney King once said after having been the poster child in the fight against really stupid police action, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Sure we can. All it takes is cyclists and non-cyclists coming to the table, sitting down opposite of each other and saying, “Let’s work out our differences.”

To be fair, there are many misunderstandings from faults of ignorant cyclists. Not criminally belligerent cyclists, mind you, just those few individuals who really haven’t taken time to understand the law, their responsibilities to the law, and how to marry the two every time they saddle up for a jaunt on America’s pathways of freedom. It isn’t rocket science and it won’t qualify them for a Nobel Prize. But the understanding of these laws should be a requisite of not only enjoying the opportunity to ride the roads but also the very right to ride the roads.

Likewise, there are also ignorant automobile operators on the flip side of the coin who must do the same. Again, for the most part, these automobile operators are not criminals, although a few have intelligence quotients that might be construed as such.

Why should both sides share this responsility as a condition of enjoying America's roadways? Because it is America, home of the brave, and land of the free. And the roads belong to all of us.