Texas. Who would have thought?
you may be right...
There's no problem finding reasons NOT to prosecute drivers who run over cyclists, but when it comes time to find a reason to convict a cyclist for legally riding in the street, idiocy reigns supreme:
"You may be right that it is safer to ride in the middle of the lane instead of the shoulder, but it is reckless of you to do so."
http://streetsblog.net/2010/08/19/texas-judge-deems-cyclist-guilty-for-riding-on-the-road/
http://let-him-ride.com/
Dang Liberal Activist Judges! With a handle like Chipseal, Toby Keith could manufacture a sweet jingoistic love ballad pining for the freedom of velocipediatry*.
* if you think it's not a word, then you hate America.
this pisses me off to no end.. how can you find someone guilty of not breaking the law.. It looks like texas' law is worded very similarly to pa law in that the word "practicable" is used in describing how close to the right you should ride, not the word "possible". Obviously safe riding is subjective, and if the rider thought it was safer to ride in the street rather than the shoulder, and the law allows him to do so, then why the heck are we arresting him? The comments by the judge are ridiculous.. that the cops and judge acknowledge that there are speeding tractor trailers, but arrest the cyclist for doing something legal..
texas blows my mind.
As a side note, im getting business card sized law cards printed up. With the pa and pgh statues on them.. it will be really small print but should still be readable.
^+1 Will those be available for distribution? (Maybe at the bike-pitt office?) I've always wanted to have a copy with me when ignorant motorists try to tell me where I'm 'allowed' to ride.
Yeha I will def have them available for distribution and plan on dumping a load at bikepgh.
"...plan on dumping a load at bikepgh."
(snicker-snicker)
Yea, that image just won't go away.