View Single Post
  #910  
Old January 31st 19, 06:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On 1/30/2019 6:39 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 11:59:33 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 8:56 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:30:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/29/2019 7:00 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:05:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/28/2019 3:21 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:17:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 8:09 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 19:07:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:16:36 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

a great deal deleted


And every state that I have lived in, some ten states, has had a law
that "thou shall not impede" which is enforced to the extent that very
wide truck loads can often only be moved late at night with a police
escort.

The argument that "the cyclist can move left if the lane is too
narrow to safely share" just isn't logical in cases where motor
traffic is traveling at, say 60 - 70mph and the bicycle is traveling
at 12 - 18 mph. Particularly in dense traffic where there may be long
lines of cars traveling, say 25 - 50 yards apart. And, yes, those
conditions exist here, particularly on weekends.

I'm sure there are roads that are, practically speaking, unrideable. I
know that because I've ridden some of them. That road along a river I
mentioned was one.

You're saying that taking the lane just isn't logical if the traffic is
doing 60 mph. But if the lane is ten feet wide (which was about the
width of the road I mentioned) what would you do? Ride skimming the
concrete wall at your right and hope that all the motorists are going to
be super-careful and pass you with at least a foot or two of clearance,
AND that magically all the potholes will disappear as you approach them,
AND that the broken glass and gravel will float away before you?

It was a terrible road. Had I known, I would not have gotten onto it.
But once I was in that situation, my only hope was to take the lane, and
I did. Some drivers honked horns, but most did not. I was able to steer
around the potholes and ride away from the accumulated edge debris. I
survived until I could exit and find a better route.

What would you have done?

As for the "famous" 3 foot rule, I find it ridicules. Can you judge
distance accurately by eye? Three feet is 36 inches and I doubt that
anyone can accurately determine the difference between a 36 inch
(legal) distance and a 35 inch (illegal) distance. Yet another
unenforceable law passed to appease a special interest group.

Why stop at one inch resolution? Three feet is 914.4 mm. Obviously every
motorist passing at 914.3 will get a ticket, just like every motorist
driving 35.05 in a 35 zone. That's how it works, right? Um... not.

Like almost every law, police will not bother trying to perfectly
enforce it. Hopefully, they will enforce it more diligently from time to
time, partly as an education effort. And the law does give an opening
for education, which our bike club and others in our state have done.
There's a sign in my front yard right now, with a graphic image showing
a car passing a bike, and the words "3 FEET - IT'S THE LAW."

My point is "how will they measure the 3 feet?" By eye? Will they have
a special radar device? Will bicycles soon mount "whiskers sticking
out 3 feet on each side?

Or will the courts simply believe the testimony of the cyclist when he
says "He passed too close"?

Actually I doubt that as in the California trial about the guy that
attacked the MTB cyclists with a saw the court threw out the first
trial because the cyclists story weren't true.

There have been a few cities where bike cops mounted radar units to
measure passing clearance. I don't think that's going to be common, but
again, the publicity helps.
https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/KPD...493831211.html

That is a device mounted on the bicycle. Who will pay for that? The
individual? Or the city/state? Will there be another ruling that "ALL
BICYCLES WILL HAVE A RADAR DEVICE INSTALLED"?

All traffic laws have been derided as silly at one time or other. All
are ignored at one time or other. But most of them do improve driver
behavior. Hopefully this one will do it, too.

The point wasn't that the law was silly. It was whether it could be
enforced and frankly I don't believe that it can be under present
conditions.


First, let's be realistic. Cops are a tiny percentage of drivers. The
odds a cop will see a given incident of too-close passing are slim. But
that same shortcoming applies to people rolling through stop signs,
passing stopped school buses, driving after drinking and much else. It's
not a good argument for repealing those laws.


You seem to be avoiding the question. How will a cop determine that
the car passed closer then 3 feet? Does he have a calibrated eyeball?

Way back when radar guns were first used, a cop, in Long Island, N.Y.
I think it was, "shot" a guy with his radar gun and the individual,
instead of passively paying his fine elected a trial and proved that
the method of calibrating the radar gun was faulty and was found not
guilty. I would suspect that if the 3 foot passing law was invoked
that eventually someone would demand a trial and likely prove that the
Cop couldn't actually determine how far 3 feet is, when seen at say 25
yards.

So what happens with those laws? Typical enforcement is by periodic
"sting" programs - hidden cop cars near stop signs, hidden cop cars near
school buses, "safety checks" where every car is stopped. (Those happen
around here a couple times per year.) And it's not that each "sting"
takes a significant number of offenders off the streets. Instead, it's
the publicity that plants the message "they may be watching, I'd better
be careful."

There have been sting operations regarding minimum passing clearance
laws. I suspect they happen where there are one or more avid cyclists,
or at least bike cops, on the police force.

Another enforcement mechanism is "after the fact." Someone hits
something or someone with their car, and is breath tested for alcohol
and prosecuted. Someone runs a stop sign in front of another driver and
gets the stop sign ticket, etc.

So another hope that's been mentioned regarding these laws goes like
this: Some sideswiping motorists have gotten acquitted by saying "The
guy on the bike swerved into the side of my car." Well, it's pretty
unrealistic for a straight-ahead bike to suddenly swerve more than three
feet. Hopefully this will toss that false excuse out.


I think that you are grasping at straws with the defense of the 3 foot
law. How many bicycle accidents concern "side swiping" a bicycle? From
what I read the most common problem is three vehicle running into a
bicycle from behind, usually because the bicycle is not riding on the
side of the road.


"... the most common problem is ... running into a bicycle from
behind..."???

Where on earth did you get that idea?


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home