My husband stumbled upon a site that is very interesting. It's called badbills.com and it highlights state legislature bills the author believes are bad, for whatever reason.
Here is a list of no-brainers:
LC0162 - State PANCAKE - No kidding!
LC1194 - State dog - didn't see one for a cat
LC1406 - Establish the third Saturday in June as a state holiday and call it "Juneteenth National Freedom Day"
LC1194 - State dog - didn't see one for a cat
LC1406 - Establish the third Saturday in June as a state holiday and call it "Juneteenth National Freedom Day"
Here are a couple of the "bad bills" that have made it to stage two:
HB184 - State Love Song
HB68 - Revise stop requirements for bicycles - Bad Bill Bob's take on this bill - "If passed, MT bicyclists may become the state pancake".
Our tax dollars at work.
Our tax dollars at work.
3 comments:
With only one session every two years (we should have annual session and shorter, BUT invaluable to keep up with 21st Century), there should be a process to 'screen' out these 'bad bills' without discouraging a legitimate process. with modern technology, video-teleconferencing, Internet, e-mail and more, we CAN have a session annually, as we know the legislator just elected has only this one opportunity a few months after the election and a session each year would allow progress in steps to better bills.
Based on his commentary of HB68, I'm guessing that "Bob" has never ridden a bicycle on city streets in Montana. His objection to allowing a cyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield sign is ironically contradictory of his stated qualifications for bad bills. In particular, it is especially contradictory of his appreciation for "liberty" and "personal responsibility." As someone with much street-cycling experience, I completely support the changes to the code sections proposed by HB68 for two reasons: [1] A person on a bicycle is much more aware of his surroundings than a person in a box (motor vehicle) because he has an unobstructed field of vision and he can hear things around him, such as approaching cars at an intersection. For this reason, a cyclist is not necessarily putting himself at risk by rolling through a stop sign. [2] Cyclists' "motors" are more sensitive to the effort of acceleration, so fewer changes in velocity means the cyclist will arrive at his destination less fatigued, less wet (from sweat), and in less time. Besides, I don't think the bill will change the way people ride their bikes; it only legitimizes the way some people already ride.
HB 68 follows an Idaho State law that has been in effect for an number of years. It makes perfect sense to someone who rides a bicycle in traffic, but likely not understandable to a non-cyclist.
Post a Comment