Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at least three feet a good idea?

CJ wrote:

Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto
infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their riders to
create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then
you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference.


There's no need for a separate infrastructure. There's a common
infrastructure which is neither car nor bike. Cars cause an exceptional
amount of wear and tear, as well as other public damage, and therefore
partially compensate the system for this, and are regulated. Cyclists
generally cause no wear and tear, nor do they cause measurable public
damage, and therefore pay less into the system (it's already been
pointed out funding through non-vehicular-related revenue streams
implies cyclists contribute plenty).

If there's any problem, it's that fees on cars are too low. This is
evident by the fact that there's so many of them, way more than an
efficient transportation system requires.

Dan

"CJ" enscribed:

Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.

Perhaps before posting in ba.general you could first acquaint yourself with taxes like Santa Clara County's various Measure A sales taxes.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"CJ" enscribed:

Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto
infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their riders to
create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then
you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference.

See also various failed attempts to close San Francisco Market Street to cars.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Dan Connelly wrote:

CJ wrote:

Did you think about what you wrote? Probably not. What part of "auto
infrastructure" do you not understand? Tax bicycles and their
riders to create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle
roadways, then you won't have to worry about car/bicycle
interference.


There's no need for a separate infrastructure. There's a common
infrastructure which is neither car nor bike. Cars cause an
exceptional amount of wear and tear, as well as other public damage,
and therefore partially compensate the system for this, and are
regulated. Cyclists generally cause no wear and tear, nor do they
cause measurable public damage, and therefore pay less into the
system (it's already been pointed out funding through
non-vehicular-related revenue streams implies cyclists contribute
plenty).

Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the
newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain
when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of
relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. Tax
bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure"
and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation.


If there's any problem, it's that fees on cars are too low. This is
evident by the fact that there's so many of them, way more than an
efficient transportation system requires.

Absolute rubbish.

--
Cliff

Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the
newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain
when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of
relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. Tax
bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure"
and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation.

I have tried this in our residential area. A separate bike path from
my house out to the next intersection, where I need to make a left.
But that now prevented my neighbors from the right to enter the street
with a left turn since they'd cross the (supposedly separate) bike
path and they are forced to make a left turn leaving the neighborhood
as the right part is now occupied by a separate bike facility. On the
other hand I can't make a left turn leaving my neighborhhod b/c there
is now a separate car facility. We figured the only way would be to
build the bike path one level up to not interfere with the cars, but
it'll take a while to get that in place.
Could you propose your idea on how the two separate transportation
systems can be built so they truly don't interfere with one another,
yet get everyone to their respective destinations?

bjorn

"CJ" wrote in message
...

Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the
newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain
when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of
relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists.

..
Um, it was (that's you isn't it?) that morphed this
thread:

"CJ" wrote in message
...
Doc O'Leary wrote:

...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly
enough, but that they are too car-friendly.


Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.

Apples and oranges. The original thrust of this thread was about the
newly proposed three foot buffer that motor vechicles must maintain
when overtaking a bicyclist. You have morphed this into a discussion of
relative amount of damage caused by bicyclists and motorists. Tax
bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure"
and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation.

What apples & oranges? It's already been explained that most of the costs
for the "car infrastructure" are paid for out of general funds, not user
taxes & fees. Using your argument, the "bicycle infrastructure" should be
getting funds that have previously been going to the "car infrastructure."

But it's an argument that has little to do with the new law. The facts are
that bicyclists and motorists (and horse & buggies for that matter) have
co-existed on the same roads for over 100 years. There is need for a
comprehensive and integrated transportation infrastructure, but any talk of
separate facilities for bikes & cars etc leads us further down a path of
disconnected transportation options, and we eventually end up... pretty much
where we are today.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 03:08:32 -0000 in rec.bicycles.soc, "CJ"
wrote:

Tax bicycles and their riders to
create a "bicycle infrastructure" with seperate bicycle roadways, then
you won't have to worry about car/bicycle interference.

you really are clueless, aren't you?

BIKES DO NOT NEED SEPARATE ROADS. Bikes belong on the same roads
as other vehicles, and those roads should be designed to
accomodate bikes, pedestrians, and other non-motorized traffic.

Besides, there is no way in hell you could raise enough money
from bicycle taxes to pay for separate bike roads. If they
existed, drivers would be hounding us to "get on the bike path".
No thank you.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:32:23 -0000 in rec.bicycles.soc, "CJ"
wrote:

Tax
bicyclists and bicycles to create a seperate "bicycle infrastructure"
and you eliminate interference between the two types of transportation.

No, you create second class roads for bicycles, and once they
were built, the cagers would make it illegal for us to ride on
the real roads.

Sorry, I'm not buying your goofy idea for segregation. Fought
that battle once, and I'm not going to do it again.

In article ,
"CJ" wrote:

Doc O'Leary wrote:

...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly
enough, but that they are too car-friendly.


Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.

Could that be because bicycles don't have *nearly* the impact on the
surrounding environment that motor vehicles do? Yeah . . . that could
be exactly it.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org