View Single Post
  #913  
Old February 1st 19, 12:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default AG: Lit Crit wanted

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:42:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/30/2019 6:21 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


You are implying that simply running into someone is meaningless,
aren't you? That you need to have yet another law to penalize the
vehicle that runs into another?

And, if it is illegal to pass a bicycle at less then 3 feet isn't it
equally illegal for the bicycle to pass another vehicle closer then 3
feet?

Or are bicycles somehow exempt from all rules and regulations and can
do anything that they want on the public highways?


Regrettably, in our car-dominated culture, there are many instances
where motorists have hit cyclists and gotten off with the flimsiest of
excuses; or with no excuse at all. The police who arrive on the scene
are often prejudiced against cyclists. (We can discuss that prejudice in
another thread.) One intent of the three foot law was to reduce the
effects of that prejudice.

Regarding bicyclists passing vehicles with less than three feet
clearance: That legality depends on the precise wording of each state's
laws. In my view, a well-written law should make that clear.

Ohio's law states "When a motor vehicle or trackless trolley overtakes
and passes a bicycle, three feet or greater is considered a safe passing
distance." That means it doesn't apply when a bicycle passes another
vehicle. And I think that's reasonable. Most often when a bicycle passes
another vehicle, that vehicle is stopped or practically stopped, and the
bicycle is slowly squeezing by.

Regarding your last paragraph, there are not many problems generated by
bicycles doing whatever they want. Bicycles are devoid of free will.
_Bicyclists_ are another matter - but they are governed by traffic law.


In a study made by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles county
it was found that in the accidents in which blame could be determined
that bicycles were at fault in more then half of the accidents.

Other studies have shown that in cases of bicycle deaths a substantial
number of the dead cyclists had blood alcohol levels above the legal
limit. New York City and San Francisco, I believe, were two studies I
read.

Yet, strangely, I've never heard a bicycle advocate emphasize that it
might be preferable to obey traffic laws and not be drunk when riding
a bicycle. In honesty I have read mention in various "how to" bicycle
articles that casually mention, usually after several lurid paragraphs
about bikes being hit from the rear and the dangers of right turns,
the casual mention that bicyclists should obey the law, with no
emphasis what so ever that riding a bicycle in violation of the
traffic laws may result in the cyclist being killed.

I remember someone posting a reference to an accident that happened
during a bicycle race. Three bicycles rode into the rear of an auto
legally parked in a designated parking area. The impression that I
perceived was that "the car shouldn't have been there".

While I do understand that this and the other bicycle sites are by and
for bicyclists the seeming attitude that no matter what happened it is
the other guy's fault and "we ought to have a law" is a bit
disconcerting. One might even say a denial of reality.


--
Cheers,
John B.


Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home